This Legal Advisory describes the application of the Federal ethics laws to student interns. As described in the Legal Advisory, the Federal ethics laws will have different application to student interns based on what legal authority they are hired under and whether they qualify as Special Government Employees or as Regular Employees.

In this Legal Advisory, OGE asks each agency to forward to OGE its annual letter stating whether its components that are currently designated should remain designated for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 207(c). Any request to modify the existing list of components should be submitted in accordance with regulatory procedures.

The Office of Government Ethics (OGE) monitors ethics-related provisions of interest to the executive branch ethics program. This Legal Advisory highlights legislative activity from the 114th Congress affecting the executive branch ethics program

This program advisory is to simplify and make uniform the process for reporting and monitoring compliance with ethics agreements. The adoption of the attached Certification of Ethics Agreement Compliance will also increase transparency regarding the actions that the executive branch's most senior leaders are taking to resolve potential conflicts of interest.

This program advisory is a data call for waivers and authorizations issued to certain appointees in the White House and other agencies from May 1, 2016 through April 30, 2017, under the following authorities: Executive Order 13770, Executive Order 13490, 18 U.S.C. § 208(b)(1), 5 C.F.R. § 2635.502(d), and 5 C.F.R. § 2635.503(c).

This Legal Advisory assists agencies in identifying a “sponsor” of an event for purposes of the Free Attendance Exclusion and the Widely Attended Gatherings (WAG) Exception to the gift rules in the Standards of Ethical Conduct at 5 C.F.R. 2635.203(b)(8) and 5 C.F.R. 2635.204(g).

This program advisory announces deadlines for the public financial disclosure reports of executive branch employees and procedures for the public financial disclosure reports of executive branch employees whose reports agencies are required to transmit to the U.S. Office of Government Ethics. The deadlines and procedures apply to 2017 annual public financial disclosure reports that are due in May 2017 and cover calendar year 2016.

This Legal Advisory identifies the parts of OGE’s past advisories on Executive Order 13490 that are applicable to Executive Order 13770 and provides additional guidance based on discussions with the Counsel to the President’s Office.

This Legal Advisory makes available for agency use a copy of Executive Order 13770 and the Ethics Pledge form. It also explains the extent to which OGE’s legal advisories applicable to Executive Order 13490 may be read as being applicable to Executive Order 13770.

This Legal Advisory discusses the recent amendments to the provisions of the Standards of Ethical Conduct that govern gifts from outside sources, found at 5 C.F.R. 2635, Subpart B, and highlights the major substantive changes set forth in the final rule.

This Legal Advisory provides interpretive guidance on the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act (STOCK Act) as it applies to the President, the Vice President, and certain executive branch employees.

This Program Advisory encourages agency ethics officials to remind political appointees and other public financial disclosure report filers about the notification requirements under the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act (STOCK Act). *attachment updated 12/23/2016 - fields now fillable on page 3, no content changes.

The U.S. Office of Government Ethics is updating its procedures associated with referrals to the Department of Justice (DOJ) of possible violations of criminal conflict of interest laws. This Program Advisory describes the updated procedures, announces a revised OGE Form 202 (Notification of Conflict of Interest Referral), provides instructions for the office making the referral to DOJ, and provides instructions for the Designated Agency Ethics Official of the agency that employs the individual who is the subject of the referral.

The U.S. Office of Government Ethics has posted on its website a new job aid to support Presidential nominees for positions requiring Senate confirmation (PAS nominees) in complying with applicable requirements for public financial disclosure. The aid, a collection of public financial disclosure review checklists, will also support agency ethics officials in reviewing PAS nominees’ financial disclosure reports.

The U.S. Office of Government Ethics (OGE) believes that ethics training is an important tool to help employees perform the government’s work with professionalism and integrity. To help agency ethics officials with this critical task, OGE is pleased to announce the release of a portfolio of education and training products agency ethics officials can use for initial ethics orientation and annual ethics training. These education products not only exceed the minimal regulatory requirements, but were specifically designed to be customized by agencies and tailored to their missions and to the work their employees perform.

This Legal Advisory provides a plain language discussion for agency ethics officials, departing employees, and former employees on the post-Government employment restrictions, particularly those found in certain provisions of the primary post-Government employment statute applicable to former employees of the executive branch, 18 U.S.C. § 207. [The guidance in this advisory was modified in 2017 by legal advisories LA-17-02 and LA-17-03.]

This Program Advisory clarifies the circumstances under which an agency may accept a termination public financial disclosure report prior to the termination of the employment of a public filer in a position subject to public filing requirements.

The U.S. Office of Government Ethics has released a new Confidential Financial Disclosure Guide, which provides comprehensive guidance on financial disclosure requirements for both new entrant and annual confidential reports in the executive branch.

This Legal Advisory discusses the recent amendments to the provisions of the Standards of Ethical Conduct that govern seeking other employment found at 5 C.F.R. 2635, Subpart F. In addition, this Legal Advisory highlights two principal changes set forth in the final rule, which OGE published in the Federal Register on July 26, 2016.

This Legal Advisory responds to the Supreme Court’s recent holding in McDonnell v. United States. The Legal Advisory emphasizes that the Supreme Court’s ruling does not affect the scope of the gift prohibitions found at 5 U.S.C. § 7353 and 5 C.F.R. § 2635.202(a), or any OGE interpretation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 202-209.

In this Legal Advisory, OGE asks each agency to forward to OGE its annual letter stating whether its components that are currently designated should remain designated for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 207(c). Any request to modify the existing list of components should be submitted in accordance with regulatory procedures.

This program advisory announces deadlines for the public financial disclosure reports of executive branch employees and procedures for the public financial disclosure reports of executive branch employees whose reports agencies are required to transmit to the U.S. Office of Government Ethics (OGE).

In this Legal Advisory, OGE asks each agency to forward to OGE its annual letter stating whether its components that are currently designated should remain designated for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 207(c). Any request to modify the existing list of components should be submitted in accordance with regulatory procedures.

This Legal Advisory explains when the employee benefit plan exemption at 5 C.F.R. § 2640.201(c)(1)(iii) is applicable to (1) employee benefit plans through which employees hold diversified pooled investment funds, and (2) employee benefit plans that are established or maintained outside of the United States.

This Legal Advisory explains the types of prepaid gift cards that are considered to be cash equivalents, and are therefore categorically prohibited under the de minimis gift exception, and the types that are not treated as cash equivalents.

This Legal Advisory discusses how the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Executive Branch Employees apply to employees' personal social media activities. The Legal Advisory focuses on common issues such as when an employee can reference his or her title on a personal social media account, and what rules apply to personal fundraising on social media.

This Legal Advisory discusses the definition of "free attendance" as used in the Widely Attended Gathering gift exception. The Legal Advisory confirms that free attendance does not include the waiver of an additional fee charged to attend a meal or reception that is collateral to the original event.

Presidential campaigns are advised that OGE recently implemented a redesigned executive branch public financial disclosure form, the OGE Form 278e (Executive Branch Personnel Public Financial Disclosure Report). Candidates for the Office of the President of the United States or the Office of the Vice President of the United States should use the OGE Form 278e.

Under the Ethics in Government Act (EIGA), and the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act of 2012 (STOCK Act), the U.S. Office of Government Ethics (OGE) is responsible for establishing and supervising a financial disclosure program for the executive branch. OGE is implementing Integrity, the new executive branch-wide electronic filing system for public filers. This Program Advisory provides Designated Agency Ethics Officials (DAEOs) with information regarding Integrity and related data-submission requirements.

This LA clarifies the 2015 thresholds for: (1) identifying which officers and employees must file public financial disclosure reports; (2) determining which senior employees are subject to the post-employment restrictions and (3) implementing the outside employment and outside earned income restrictions for certain covered noncareer employees.

This Legal Advisory provides guidance to agencies on factors to consider in determining whether references to an employee's title or position made by a private organization with which the employee is affiliated would create an impermissible appearance of government sanction or endorsement.

This legal advisory explains and expands the options available to ethics officials for ensuring and documenting compliance with PAS officials' ethics agreements. It also clarifies the discretion ethics officials have in determining when screening arrangements are necessary to implement recusal commitments, and what form such arrangements can take.

This Legal Advisory explains what Presidential Nominees, subject to Senate confirmation, must report on the OGE 278 when they own certain Pooled Investment Funds that do not qualify as excepted investment funds.

In this Legal Advisory, OGE asks each agency to forward to OGE its annual letter stating whether its components that are currently designated should remain designated for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 207(c). Any request to modify the existing list of components should be submitted in accordance with regulatory procedures.

This Legal Advisory discusses changes to the statutory pay-level thresholds for certain purposes under the Ethics in Government Act and 18 U.S.C. § 207(c). The Legal Advisory also provides the relevant threshold amounts.

In this Legal Advisory, OGE asks each agency to forward to OGE its annual letter stating whether its components that are currently designated should remain designated for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 207(c). Any request to modify the existing list of components should be submitted in accordance with regulatory procedures.

This Education Advisory notifies the executive branch ethics community of the launch of the Institute for Ethics in Government (IEG) on the MAX.gov website. The IEG is the new home for all of OGE’s education offerings, making learning opportunities available to all executive branch ethics officials.

This Legal Advisory clarifies that employees must comply with the notification requirements under section 17 of the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act of 2012 (STOCK Act) when they negotiate for, or have an agreement of, post-government, non-federal compensation for services to be rendered entirely after termination of federal employment.

This Legal Advisory discusses the history and scope of the exemption for official participation in nonprofit organizations found at 5 C.F.R. § 2640.203(m). The Legal Advisory also highlights important considerations for agency officials who intend to assign employees to serve in an official capacity at a nonprofit organization.

This memorandum clarifies guidance concerning the application of the financial disclosure reporting requirements to discretionary trusts, as the term “discretionary trust” is defined in OGE’s only issuance on such trusts, DAEOgram DO-08-024 (2008)

OGE will be distributing the Ethics Pledge assessment to agencies on January 14, 2013. Agencies are requested to complete the assessment by February 4, 2013. This assessment is separate from the Agency Ethics Program Questionnaire.

In this legal advisory, OGE summarizes the ethical requirements relevant to a Federal employee during the 2013 Presidential Inauguration celebration, particularly those requirements regarding gifts. [The guidance in this advisory was modified in 2017 by legal advisories LA-17-02 and LA-17-03.]

This Legal Advisory clarifies that the exception at 18 U.S.C. § 205(e) for representation of persons with whom an employee has a personal relationship before the Government in connection with most matters may permit representation of an employee's stepparent or stepchild when the relationship is one that invokes certain family responsibilities.

This Legal Advisory clarifies that an individual waiver issued pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 208(b)(1) to an employee who has transferred from one agency to another will remain effective until the receiving agency makes a determination to either cancel the waiver or issue a new waiver.

This Legal Advisory clarifies when an employee’s participation in an event will constitute “otherwise presenting information on behalf of the agency” for purposes of the “speaking and similar engagements” gift exception at 5 C.F.R. § 2635.204(g)(1).

This Legal Advisory explains the STOCK Act provision that requires certain employees to file periodic public reports of their transactions. The Legal Advisory also includes a copy of the new form that employees should use to file their periodic transaction reports (OGE Form 278-T). [The guidance in this advisory regarding periodic reporting of spouse and dependent children transactions was updated in 2013 by Legal Advisory LA-13-01.]

OGE asks each agency to forward to OGE its annual letter stating whether its components that are currently designated should remain designated for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 207(c). Any request to modify the existing list of components should be submitted in accordance with regulatory procedures.

This Program Management Advisory announces the launch of a web guide for individuals filing the OGE Form 278 as new entrants or as nominees to Presidentially-appointed, Senate-confirmed (PAS) positions.

This Legal Advisory explains STOCK Act provisions requiring certain employees to: (1) Notify their DAEOs of any negotiation or agreement for future employment or compensation within three business days after commencement of the negotiation or agreement; and (2) Recuse whenever there is a conflict of interest or appearance issue with the entity. [The notification/recusal format was updated in 2013 in the attachment to Legal Advisory LA-13-06.]

The United States Office of Government Ethics (OGE) is implementing a new process by which agencies can forward compliance documentation for ethics agreements. Agencies who are forwarding compliance documentation to OGE must submit via email to eacompliance@oge.gov.

The United States Office of Government Ethics (OGE) is compiling information to assess agency compliance with Executive Order 13490, “Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Personnel” (January 21, 2009). OGE is requesting information relative to full-time non-career appointees appointed during calendar year 2011. The information will be used to prepare the annual public report as required by the Executive Order.

This Legal Advisory reminds agencies that the three statutory pay-level thresholds for certain purposes under either the Ethics in Government Act (Ethics Act) or 18 U.S.C. § 207(c) will remain the same as last year.

The U.S. Office of Government Ethics (OGE) has revised the OGE Form 278 and the OGE Form 450 to reflect the current thresholds for reporting gifts and travel reimbursements, as amended by 76 Fed. Reg. 38547 (July 1, 2011).

In January 2012, OGE will be compiling information to assess agency compliance with Executive Order 13490, “Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Personnel.” We will be collecting information relative to appointees appointed during calendar year 2011.The information will be used to prepare the annual public report as required by the Executive Order.

This legal advisory addresses whether an agency needs a supplemental ethics regulation, the appropriate ethics issues to include in a supplemental agency regulation, and summarizes OGE's role in assisting agencies with this process.

The United States Office of Government Ethics is launching its Annual Survey of Ethics Officials. The survey will be distributed to the Designated Agency Ethics Official (DAEO), Alternate DAEO, and other high-level agency ethics contacts at all executive branch agencies. The survey will be open for responses until October 6, 2011.

OGE analyzes whether, under 5 C.F.R. § 2635.802, an agency may issue an across-the-board policy that an employee may not run for or hold nonpartisan elective office because election to that office may have the potential to create the appearance of misuse of the employee's federal position. OGE also provides guidance on related ethics issues.

This Program Management Advisory serves as a reminder and clarification of the requirements for timely certification of financial disclosure reports under 5 C.F.R. § 2634.605(a). During recent program reviews, PRD has found some confusion and different interpretations among agencies regarding the requirement to accomplish final certification of financial disclosure reports within 60 days of their receipt.

OGE asks each agency to forward to OGE its annual letter stating whether its components that are currently designated should remain designated for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 207(c). Any request to modify the existing list of components should be submitted in accordance with regulatory procedures.

This Legal Advisory updates relevant legislative activity from the recently ended 111th Congress, including the re-codification of the Procurement Integrity Act, changes to the ethics laws for the intelligence community, and a trend toward imposing new post-employment restrictions on certain Executive Branch employees.

The United States Office of Government Ethics (OGE) is compiling information to assess agency compliance with Executive Order 13490, “Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Personnel” (January 21, 2009). OGE is requesting information relative to full-time non-career appointees appointed during calendar year 2010. The information will be used to prepare the annual public report as required by the Executive Order.

OGE replaces the SF 278 Executive Branch Personnel Public Financial Disclosure Report with a new form for collecting public financial disclosure reports in the Federal executive branch, the OGE Form 278.

The United States Office of Government Ethics announces the launch of the 2010 Annual Survey of Ethics Officials. The survey provides OGE with information to enhance the executive branch ethics program.

The United States Office of Government Ethics reminds Designated Agency Ethics Officials of the annual requirement to forward a letter stating whether components currently designated should remain designated.

The United States Office of Government Ethics reminds agencies to notify OGE of all Presidentially Appointed Senate Confirmed (PAS) officials and Designated Agency Ethics Officials (DAEO) who received extensions of the filing deadline.

Attendance by particular personnel whose presence is truly essential to the performance of the Executive Branch speaker's official duties at a specific event does not violate either OGE’s long-standing gift rules or the Executive Order 13490 lobbyist gift ban. [The guidance in this advisory was modified in 2017 by legal advisories LA-17-02 and LA-17-03.]

This memorandum highlights 5 C.F.R. § 2640.203(d), which authorizes an employee to participate in official travel matters, with certain limits, notwithstanding the financial interest that may arise from an agency's provision of travel benefits and cost reimbursement to the employee.

The United States Office of Government Ethics is compiling information to assess agency compliance with Executive Order 13490, “Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Personnel."" The information will be used to prepare the annual public report as required by Executive Order.

he United States Office of Government Ethics reminds Designated Agency Ethics Officials that PAS officials serving in covered public financial disclosure filing positions are required to file a termination public financial disclosure report within 30 days after leaving office.

Executive Branch employees may accept offers of free attendance at events from the Kennedy Center, consistent with the gift rules in the Standards of Ethical Conduct. This determination is limited to the Kennedy Center and should not be read as extending to all congressionally-established entities.

The United States Office of Government Ethics has begun an assessment of agency compliance with the Ethics Pledge requirement of Executive Order 13490, “Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Personnel.”

The United States Office of Government Ethics will be conducting an electronic survey to assess agency compliance with administration of the Ethics Pledge required by President Obama’s Executive Order 13490.

OGE addresses questions about how to apply Paragraph 2 of the Ethics Pledge in Executive Order 13490 to an appointee who gives an official speech at an event sponsored by a former employer or client. OGE also addresses the question of whether the Pledge applies to detailees under the IPA. [The guidance in this advisory was modified in 2017 by legal advisories LA-17-02 and LA-17-03.]

This memorandum reiterates and clarifies previous guidance regarding which commitments in a PAS nominee's ethics agreement require evidence of compliance and what documentation the United States Office of Government Ethics will accept as demonstrating compliance.

Appointees from the prior Administration must sign the Ethics Pledge once the 100-day grace period expires. [The guidance in this advisory was modified in 2017 by legal advisories LA-17-02 and LA-17-03.]

OGE provides an explanation of the phrases that comprise paragraph 2 of the Ethics Pledge and discusses how paragraph 2 interacts with existing impartiality regulations. [The guidance in this advisory was modified in 2017 by legal advisories LA-17-02 and LA-17-03.]

OGE identifies the categories of officials who must sign the Ethics Pledge required by Executive Order 13490 and those who are not required to sign. [The guidance in this advisory was modified in 2017 by legal advisories LA-17-02 and LA-17-03.]

OGE provides guidance to Designated Agency Ethics Officials on the exercise of waiver authority under Section 3 of Executive Order 13490. [The guidance in this advisory was modified in 2017 by legal advisories LA-17-02 and LA-17-03.]

OGE provides guidance on the implementation and interpretation of the lobbyist gift ban in paragraph 1 of the Ethics Pledge in Executive Order 13490. [The guidance in this advisory was modified in 2017 by legal advisories LA-17-02 and LA-17-03.]

As of January 30, 2009, agencies are authorized to allow digital signatures on the electronically fillable PDF version of the confidential financial disclosure form (OGE Form 450) if their agency’s Chief Information Officer (CIO) has approved a digital signature process.

OGE provides an overview of President Obama's Executive Order 13490, "Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Personnel." [The guidance in this advisory was modified in 2017 by legal advisories LA-17-02 and LA-17-03.]

OGE reminds agencies of the ethical requirements pertaining to offers of free attendance from various sources to Federal employees to attend Inauguration-related events, including the Inaugural Parade, Inaugural Balls, receptions, dinners and fundraisers.

When a current employee assumes new responsibilities, even on a temporary basis, ethics officials need to reexamine the employee's financial disclosure report to determine whether potential conflicts of interest may exist with the employee's new duties.

Recent legislation affecting the executive branch ethics program includes a loan repayment assistance plan, legislation on conflicts of interest for certain contractor employees, and a revision to the base pay of certain senior officials.

OGE strongly encourages agency ethics officials to document ethics advice provided to current and former employees. Additionally, ethics officials should establish close working relationships with their respective Inspector General offices.

OGE provides guidance concerning the treatment of income beneficiaries of discretionary trusts, for purposes of the disqualification requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 208 as well as the financial disclosure requirements of section 102(f)(1) of the Ethics in Government Act, 5 U.S.C. app. [The guidance in this advisory was updated in 2013 by Legal Advisory LA-13-04.]

OGE explains what actions a nominee for a full-time Senate-confirmed position (PAS nominee) must take with regard to pooled investment funds in order for the Director of OGE to certify the individual’s financial disclosure report. [The guidance in this advisory was updated in 2014 by Legal Advisory LA-14-05.]

OGE announces it will conduct a review to evaluate agencies’ processes and procedures for collecting, reviewing, and certifying financial disclosure reports, including those filed by nominees for Presidentially-appointed, Senate-confirmed (PAS) positions.

An employee may accept compensation for teaching a course offered by a NAFI because the term "sponsored and funded by the Federal Government" in this exception encompasses courses of instruction offered and funded by NAFIs.

18 U.S.C. § 207(j)(7) provides an exception to the one-year no-contact ban for former senior employees and the two-year no-contact ban for very senior employees. These categories of employees do not violate the statute if a communication or appearance is on behalf of a candidate or one of the specified political entities.

An employee may accept compensation for teaching a course offered by a NAFI because the term "sponsored and funded by the Federal Government" in this exception encompasses courses of instruction offered and funded by NAFIs.

18 U.S.C. § 207(j)(7) provides an exception to the one-year no-contact ban for former senior employees and the two-year no-contact ban for very senior employees. These categories of employees do not violate the statute if a communication or appearance is on behalf of a candidate or one of the specified political entities.

OGE issues final rule amendments that revise the financial disclosure regulations to reflect the statutory increase of the thresholds for reporting of gifts, reimbursements and travel expenses. OGE also increases the widely attended gathering gift exception ceiling for nonsponsor gifts of free attendance.

OGE provides a comprehensive discussion of the laws pertaining to book deals involving Government employees. The rules for regular and special Government employees are covered in one document, and the rules for noncareer employees and Presidential appointees are addressed in a second document.

OGE provides a comprehensive discussion of the laws pertaining to book deals involving Government employees. The rules for regular and special Government employees are covered in one document, and the rules for noncareer employees and Presidential appointees are addressed in a second document.

The provisions of NARA’s rule and the GRS 20 revisions that generally allow the destruction of original paper documents will not apply to public and confidential financial disclosure reports and related ethics agreements. These original documents must be maintained in accordance with the full time periods specified in GRS 25.

The Motion Picture Association of America receives a response related to the Widely Attended Gathering exception to the gift rules and a clarification of "prohibited source" at 5 C.F.R. § 2635.204(h) of the Standards of Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch.

Agencies with alternative pay systems should continue to designate executive-level employees as public filers if the lowest pay for their grade or range is equal to or greater than 120 percent of the minimum rate of basic pay payable for a GS-15. Seeking an equal classification is an option for other employees.

Agencies with alternative pay systems should continue to designate executive-level employees as public filers if the lowest pay for their grade or range is equal to or greater than 120 percent of the minimum rate of basic pay payable for a GS-15. Seeking an equal classification is an option for other employees.

The bill extends the cooling off period for very senior executive branch employees from one year to two and adds a criminal penalty for knowing and willful falsification or failure to report required information on a financial disclosure form.

Where members of an advisory board are given access to classified information solely to help them perform their advisory function, this access alone does not constitute a delegation of Governmental, sovereign authority that would result in their advisory board service falling under the restrictions of the Emoluments Clause.

OGE discusses whether communication and appearances made during the performance of a training contract by a former senior official subject to 18 U.S.C. § 207(c) may involve the intent to influence on behalf of the contractor.

This memorandum outlines several factors that an executive branch employee should consider in deciding when it is appropriate to assist an associate, either another Government employee or a private party, in efforts to obtain private sector employment.

This memorandum outlines several factors that an executive branch employee should consider in deciding when it is appropriate to assist an associate, either another Government employee or a private party, in efforts to obtain private sector employment.

OGE will perform the final review and certification of recess appointees’ annual and termination public financial disclosure reports and will also track compliance with recess appointees’ ethics agreements.

Generally, a Federal employee who writes an immigration support letter and submits the letter to an arm of the Federal Government would not normally be ""act[ing]as agent or attorney"" for another within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 205.

Generally, a Federal employee who writes an immigration support letter and submits the letter to an arm of the Federal Government would not normally be ""act[ing]as agent or attorney"" for another within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 205.

Although each agency may undertake the development of its own electronic filing process to use with either the public (SF 278) or confidential (OGE Form 450) reporting system, each agency must follow some basic guidelines.

Travel reimbursements that are required to be reported to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) because they are for a Federal campaign or election are not required to be reported on public and confidential financial disclosure reports.

Travel reimbursements that are required to be reported to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) because they are for a Federal campaign or election are not required to be reported on public and confidential financial disclosure reports.

OGE describes creative, innovative educational programs and tools being used by the 2007 Training Award recipients. The products serve as models of programs that can be adapted for use by other agencies.

The Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice, issued an opinion reaffirming the longstanding executive branch interpretation that service by a special Government employee for part of any day counts as service for a full day, for purposes of relevant limits on the number of days of service under the conflict of interest laws.

The Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice, issued an opinion reaffirming the longstanding executive branch interpretation that service by a special Government employee for part of any day counts as service for a full day, for purposes of relevant limits on the number of days of service under the conflict of interest laws.

The value of a gift of attendance in a skybox or private suite is determined by adding the market value of the most expensive publicly available ticket to the event to the market value of the food, parking and other tangible benefits provided in connection with the gift of attendance.

The value of a gift of attendance in a skybox or private suite is determined by adding the market value of the most expensive publicly available ticket to the event to the market value of the food, parking and other tangible benefits provided in connection with the gift of attendance.

Government employees are generally prohibited from acting as agent or attorney for anyone before a Federal court in connection with any covered matter in which the U.S. is a party or has a direct and substantial interest. 18 U.S.C. § 205(i) provides an exception for representing a "labor organization" under certain conditions.

If an employing agency determines that a private corporation's Employee Purchase Program is a benefit secured by a Government contract, the benefit is provided to the employee by the Government. Accepting the benefit does not the gift prohibition. The employing agency must determine whether the benefit is secured by a Government contract.

OGE discusses the meaning of and the distinctions among the terms "particular matter involving specific parties," "particular matter," and "matter" as used in the criminal conflict of interest statutes and regulations.

OGE discusses the meaning of and the distinctions among the terms "particular matter involving specific parties," "particular matter," and "matter" as used in the criminal conflict of interest statutes and regulations.

The final rule clarifies that detailees to an agency from a State or local government or other organization, under the Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA), 5 U.S.C. § 3374, are covered by the Standards.

Guidance on variety of ethics issues that commonly arise in procurement context, such as seeking employment, post-employment, financial conflicts of interest, outside employment, gifts and misuse of office.

Guidance on variety of ethics issues that commonly arise in procurement context, such as seeking employment, post-employment, financial conflicts of interest, outside employment, gifts and misuse of office.

OGE believes a Government employee should be allowed to use reasonable periods of official time to complete a financial disclosure report because completion of the report is a requirement of the Government position. For the same reason, assigning a subordinate to complete the report is not an improper use of Government position or resources.

The proposed rule would clarify that detailees to an agency from a State or local government or other organization, under the Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA), 5 U.S.C. § 3374, are covered by the Standards.

OGE explains that Agency Ethics Officials have a duty to report possible violations of the ethics rules to the appropriate authorities, including OGE, and do not have a duty to protect employee; lack of knowledge of the ethics rules is not a defense; and an employee is responsible for remembering his ethical obligations or seeking ethics advice.

OGE discusses the extent of its authority to waive the application of the one-year cooling-off period to a particular position or category of positions. OGE denied the request for a waiver to permit former senior employees to make representational contacts with current employees of their former agencies who happen to be on detail to another agency.

An employee may only accept the testamentary gifts from a prohibited source if the gift falls within one of the gift acceptance exceptions. Included are factors to consider if relying on the personal relationship exception.

OGE provides advice to a former employee on 18 U.S.C. § 207, including guidance on a "particular matter involving specific parties," and the post-employment restrictions under the Procurement Integrity Act in 41 U.S.C. § 423.

OGE will continue the system of “pre-clearing” nominee financial disclosure forms. The goal of this system is to ensure that all technical and substantive issues are resolved prior to nomination, so that no impediments to confirmation arise at the last minute.

OGE summarizes Office of Legal Counsel Opinion about whether a nonprofit organization has a financial interest in a particular matter on which it spends funds to advocate its policy position, solely by virtue of such expenditures. [Note: This DAEOgram modified OGE Informal Advisory Letter 97 x 2.]

OGE summarizes Office of Legal Counsel Opinion about whether a nonprofit organization has a financial interest in a particular matter on which it spends funds to advocate its policy position, solely by virtue of such expenditures. [Note: This informal advisory letter modified OGE Informal Advisory Letter 97 x 2.]

18 U.S.C. § 209 does not bar most employees from being paid for participating during non-duty hours in a survey related to insurance offered to federal employees. However, employees must comply with their agency supplemental regulation regarding outside activities because being paid for the survey participation is considered part-time employment.

Provides guidance on various restrictions on covered noncareer employee pursuant to Title V of Ethics in Government Act and 5 C.F.R. part 2636; also guidance with respect to determining status as special government employee

OGE provides guidance for determining when a particular matter involving specific parties comes into existence for purposes of the post-government employment restrictions at 18 U.S.C. § 207(a) in situations involving multi-year, multi-phase, multi-contract Government procurement programs. Usually, specific parties are first identified when initial proposals or indications of interest are received by the Government.

Employee was prohibited from keeping a prize won at a national association conference because all attendees paid to attend the conference and thus the random drawing was not "open to the public" as used in the gift exclusion at 5 C.F.R. § 2635.203(b)(5).

OGE describes policies for a program to provide professional development opportunities for executive branch employees who work in the ethics program, as well as for OGE employees who have substantive ethics program duties. This memorandum describes the purpose of the Rotational Assignment Program (RAP) and provides guidelines for its administration.

OGE issues final rule amendments (March 2005) that revise the financial disclosure regulations to reflect the statutory increase of the thresholds for reporting of gifts, reimbursements and travel expenses.

An employee who serves as an unpaid board director/trustee for an outside organization did not provide representational services under 18 U.S.C. § 205 by signing a registration statement on behalf of the organization.

OGE discussed the justification and requirements for financial disclosure of assets of a spouse or dependent and reviewed the three-pronged test for non-disclosure of an interest in property held by a spouse or dependent child.

OGE’s director must determine that divestiture of an asset is “reasonably necessary” to comply with federal conflict of interest rules or is at the request of a Congressional committee as a condition of confirmation. The Director may not grant a Certificate of Divestiture merely because divestiture of some property may create cost, tax, or diversification issue.

OGE offered guidance about 18 U.S.C. § 205(a)(2) to assist a DC Assistant General Counsel with the interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 205(b)(2). 18 U.S.C. § 205(a)(2) requires that an employee’s activity be representational, before a specified entity, and in relation to a covered matter in which the U.S. is a party or has a direct and substantial interest.

OGE determined that the Executive Director of an agency was not a "covered noncareer employee" as defined in 5 C.F.R. § 2636.303(a). The Executive Director position was not a policy-making position nor did it involve a close and confidential working relationship with key appointed officials within the meaning of 5 C.F.R. § 213.3301.

OGE discusses the role of agency ethics officials in relation to the designation of advisory committee members as special Government employees (SGEs) or representatives. Many procedures would establish a close working relationship between the two groups to ensure that appropriate member status designations are being made and that SGEs are receiving guidance about ethics laws.

OGE discusses the role of agency ethics officials in relation to the designation of advisory committee members as SGEs or representatives. Many procedures would establish a close working relationship between the two groups to ensure that appropriate member status designations are being made and that SGEs are receiving guidance about ethics laws.

Personnel participating in the Maryland Department of Transportation “Sworn Officer Program,” which offered free commuter service to certain law enforcement personnel in exchange for security-related services, must comply with any prior approval requirements for outside activities. The free transportation is not considered a gift subject to 5 C.F.R. part 2635.

Personnel participating in the Maryland Department of Transportation “Sworn Officer Program,” which offered free commuter service to certain law enforcement personnel in exchange for security-related services, must comply with any prior approval requirements for outside activities. The free transportation is not considered a gift subject to 5 C.F.R. part 2635.

Government employees who use outdoor clothing and gear in the course of their Federal employment may not accept retail discounts from merchants of such clothing and gear. The gift would not have been offered but for the duties associated with the employee’s particular position, thus the offer fell within the general gift prohibits of 5 C.F.R. § 2635.202.

Because they continue to meet the definition of “employee” in 5 C.F.R. § 2635.102(h), furloughed employees must comply with OGE and agency-specific rules pertaining to outside employment and activities (18 U.S.C. § 203 & 205), and refrain from representing others before the Federal government or supplementing their salary (18 U.S.C. § 207).

Recusals are required when an employee is 1) prohibited from participating personally and substantially in a matter by 18 U.S.C. § 208; 2) chooses or is directed not to participate in a matter involving specific parties under 5 C.F.R. § 2635.502; or 3) receives an extraordinary payment from a former employer under 5 C.F.R. § 2635.503. [The guidance in this advisory was updated in 2014 by Legal Advisory LA-14-06.]

This memorandum reiterates some of the relevant principles set forth in DO-99-018, and identifies some screening arrangement guidelines that agencies should consider. A model screening arrangement is attached. [The guidance in this advisory was updated in 2014 by Legal Advisory LA-14-06.]

OGE addressed whether and under what circumstances the head of an agency component may accept an award from a source doing business anywhere in the agency. OGE also discussed lecture awards and when an outside consulting arrangement is consistent with ethical requirements in 5 C.F.R. § 2635.702.

OGE addressed whether and under what circumstances the head of an agency component may accept an award from a source doing business anywhere in the agency. OGE also discussed lecture awards and when an outside consulting arrangement is consistent with ethical requirements in 5 C.F.R. § 2635.702.

OGE indicated it would not approve a proposed supplemental regulation that conditioned the permissibility of an outside activity upon the public disclosure of the activity or of any income earned from the activity.

Financial Disclosure report filers must list all the underlying mutual funds they hold in their retirement plans. Therefore, filers must fully disclose the fund names of all TIAA-CREF funds in which they have invested. All TIAA-CREF funds currently meet the 5 CFR 2634 definition of Excepted Investment Fund.

To commemorate the 25th anniversary of the beginning of the modern executive branch ethics program, OGE provides a sample message that ethics officials may send to employees to heighten employee awareness and understanding of the ethics program.

The Standards of Conduct contain no regulatory exception that would permit a senior procurement official and his spouse to accept a meal from a company for the purpose of discussing the company’s future business opportunities with the official’s department. He may accept a meal that has a value of $20 or less ($50 per year per source).

18 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1) does not bar a communication or appearance concerning a contract if it has substantially changed. For example, a contract may no longer be the same contract if there are different terms, there is different confidential information involved, and a significant period of time has passed.

18 U.S.C. § 207(c) bars a communication to or appearance before an employee of the former senior employee’s agency (or an employee detailed to that agency), regardless of the forum. An employee is not necessarily insulated from an attempt to influence merely because the employee is characterized as an observer.

A special Government employee (SGE) is always prohibited from representing others in connection with particular matters involving specific parties in which the SGE has participated personally and substantially. The 60-day standard is a threshold for the stricter prohibition in relation to matters pending at the SGE’s agency.

18 U.S.C. § 207 does not cover an individual who interacts with the Government solely on his own behalf, but it may affect an individual who has formed a corporation or partnership if the individual represents the corporation or partnership.

OGE provides information on the procedures for submitting semiannual reports of payments received from non-Federal sources in connection with the attendance of employees at certain meetings or similar functions (31 U.S.C. § 1353).

Performance of a support services contract could involve the intent to influence for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1). The restriction can be violated by an employee’s mere appearance without speaking.

OGE updated the OGE/GOVT-1 system of records (covering SF 278 Public Financial Disclosure Reports and other name-retrieved ethics program records) to include three new routine uses of the SF 278 (August 2003). OGE also notified agencies of adjustments to the gifts/travel reimbursements reporting thresholds.

A special Government employee (SGE) serving on an advisory committee is subject to many of the Federal ethics laws and regulations, but a “representative” member of a committee is not. Some provisions apply differently to SGEs than to “regular” employees or do not apply at all.

This memorandum briefly summarizes some significant features of the revised OMB Circular A-76; explains that DAEO and Alternate DAEO functions are inherently Governmental and must be performed by Government employees; and identifies some common ethics official activities that are inherently Governmental.

This memorandum briefly summarizes some significant features of the revised OMB Circular A-76; explains that DAEO and Alternate DAEO functions are inherently Governmental and must be performed by Government employees; and identifies some common ethics official activities that are inherently Governmental.

OGE provides information on the procedures for submitting semiannual reports of payments received from non-Federal sources in connection with the attendance of employees at certain meetings or similar functions (31 U.S.C. § 1353).

OGE summarizes the restrictions in 18 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1), 18 U.S.C. § 207(a)(2), and 18 U.S.C. § 207(c) and the procurement integrity restrictions in 41 U.S.C. § 423. Allegations of misconduct ordinarily are investigated by the Inspector General of an individual’s former agency.

The term “diversified” is defined in 5 C.F.R. § 2640.102(a) for purposes of the exemption at 5 C.F.R. § 2640.201(a). An open-end mutual fund is “diversified” for purposes of the certificate of divestiture regulation and qualifies as "permitted property" if it does not have an objective or practice of investing in particular or limited sectors.

Detailees under the IPA who occupy positions that fit one of the categories in section 101 of the Ethics in Government Act (or that are of "equal classification" with those positions) are required to file public financial disclosure reports. Agencies may require other detailees to file confidential financial disclosure reports.

Detailees under the IPA who occupy positions that fit one of the categories in section 101 of the Ethics in Government Act (or that are of "equal classification" with those positions) are required to file public financial disclosure reports. Agencies may require other detailees to file confidential financial disclosure reports.

Use of the title "Administrative Law Judge," or "U.S. Administrative Law Judge," are references to an ALJ's official position and could be a violation of the Standards of Conduct when used on personal letterhead. In contrast, the use of "Judge," or "The Honorable" are commonly used honorifics that can be used on personal letterhead.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 207(a)(2) a matter was actually pending as a particular matter involving specific parties under a former employee's official responsibility before he terminated his position. A particular matter involving specific parties may be pending in an agency prior to the filing of an actual application for some kind of Federal action.

A senior employee is still considered a senior employee of his agency for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 207(c) while on home leave. In addition, a senior employee on detail to an agency from his home agency is considered a senior employee of both agencies for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. § 207(c).

OGE issues final rule amendments (September 2002) that revise the financial disclosure regulations to reflect the statutory increase of the thresholds for reporting of gifts, reimbursements and travel expenses.

OGE summarizes 18 U.S.C. § 207(j), concurs that a proposed waiver under 18 U.S.C. § 207(j)(5) would permit a former employee to furnish scientific or technological information to his former agency, and provides guidance concerning the scope of the proposed waiver.

Amendments to the financial disclosure regulations allow agencies to grant public filers the additional extensions of time currently granted by the OGE Director, not to exceed 45 days, and to waive the late filing fee for public filers who submit their reports more than 30 days after the due date.

OGE analyzes the unusual and complicated facts related to the Yucca Mountain project and concludes, for purposes of this case, that certain pre-licensing matters should be viewed as part of the same particular matter involving specific parties as the licensing proceedings for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 207(a).

This memorandum provides ethics officials with general guidance on the subject of revocable living trusts and explains the context in which an amendment to the financial disclosure regulations applies.

OLC issues an opinion dealing with the question of whether an individual becomes an officer or employee, for purposes of the conflict of interest restrictions, upon appointment by the President but before beginning duties.

OLC issues an opinion dealing with the question of whether an individual becomes an officer or employee, for purposes of the conflict of interest restrictions, upon appointment by the President but before beginning duties.

OGE reiterates reporting requirements for trustees and executors. OGE also summarizes reporting requirements for the situation in which an employee, spouse or dependent child has a beneficial interest in a trust or estate.

OGE publishes a final rule amending the regulations in 5 C.F.R. part 2640 that exempt certain financial interests as being too remote or inconsequential to affect the integrity of the services of employees, under 18 U.S.C. § 208(b)(2).

OGE describes required evidence that must be submitted to OGE within three months from a nominee's Senate confirmation date with respect to certain recusals made by nominees under Subpart E of 5 C.F.R. part 2635 in the nominee's ethics agreement. OGE also summarizes policies on extensions of time to complete compliance with an ethics agreement, including timing considerations when an appointee will be applying for a Certificate of Divestiture.

The immediate practical consequence of this OLC opinion is that, in many situations, employees will not be deemed to have a disqualifying financial interest in matters affecting the holdings of a trust in which the employee’s spouse or minor child serves as a trustee.

The immediate practical consequence of this OLC opinion is that, in many situations, employees will not be deemed to have a disqualifying financial interest in matters affecting the holdings of a trust in which the employee’s spouse or minor child serves as a trustee.

Because a proposed book by an administrative judge dealt in significant part with an ongoing or announced policy, program or operation of his agency, he was barred by 5 C.F.R. § 2635.807 from receiving compensation for the book.

OGE addresses issue of whether certain conduct by an attorney in an agency "created a situation in which her impartiality could be questioned" and whether she should have disqualified herself from certain particular matters or sought an authorization to participate, pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 2635.502.

An administrative judge is barred by 5 C.F.R. § 2635.807 from receiving compensation for writing a pair of proposed books on the subject of compensatory damages in private sector cases and in Federal sector cases.

OGE responds to a request from a Senate committee to review the requirements of 5 C.F.R. § 2635.502 in order to “ensure that the rule is written and applied in a manner that effectively evaluates a nominee’s conflict of interest and impartiality on matters relating to 'covered relationships.’”

This memorandum addresses several issues pertaining to ethics agreements of Presidential appointees whose positions require Senate confirmation. [NOTE: The model document attached to this DAEOgram has been superseded by the model document in OGE's 2014 guide on ethics agreements]

Potential PAS appointees hired as advisors or counselors prior to announcement, nomination and confirmation to a PAS position are employees of the United States and are generally subject to all Federal ethics laws and regulations. They will qualify as special Government employees.

The Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion about payments to charitable organizations in lieu of honoraria (an exception to honoraria ban) and an opinion about communications under 18 U.S.C. § 207(c). [Note: The honoraria ban was held unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. National Treasury Employees Union, 513 U.S. 454 (1995).]

The Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion about payments to charitable organizations in lieu of honoraria (an exception to honoraria ban) and an opinion about communications under 18 U.S.C. § 207(c). [Note: The honoraria ban was held unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. National Treasury Employees Union, 513 U.S. 454 (1995).]

Potential PAS appointees hired as advisors or counselors prior to announcement, nomination and confirmation to a PAS position are employees of the United States and are generally subject to all Federal ethics laws and regulations. They will qualify as special Government employees.

18 U.S.C. §§ 203 and 205 prohibit an employee from acting as a compensated agent for private clients in prosecuting patent applications before the Patent and Trademark Office of the Department of Commerce.

OGE summarizes the results of the Executive Branch Employee Ethics Survey 2000. The survey had two primary purposes. The first was to assess the effectiveness of the executive branch ethics program, from an employee perspective. The second was to assess executive branch ethical culture.

President George W. Bush issues a memorandum to agency heads asking them to ensure that all personnel within their departments and agencies are familiar with, and will faithfully observe, applicable ethics laws and regulations.

President Clinton revokes Executive Order 12834, which had imposed special post-employment restrictions on senior appointees of his Administration by requiring senior officials and trade negotiators to sign a pledge as a condition of holding a covered position.

This memorandum provides guidance on issues concerning the activities of members of the President-elect's Transition Team. OGE also describes how nominee financial disclosure forms will be processed during the transition.

OGE issues final rule amendments that revise the financial disclosure regulations to reflect the statutory increase of the thresholds for reporting of gifts, reimbursements and travel expenses. OGE also increases the widely attended gathering gift exception ceiling for nonsponsor gifts of free attendance.

A judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) would not qualify as an “eligible person” for a Certificate of Divestiture, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 1043(b)(1)(A). CAAF judges are not executive branch employees.

OGE concluded that the limitation in the final clause of the exclusion to 18 U.S.C. § 208 contained in 18 U.S.C. § 208(b)(4) involving financial interests by birthright, covers only certain particular matters that involve specific parties.

OGE determined that, although an employee would violate 18 U.S.C. § 205 if he represented taxpayers before the Internal Revenue Service, 18 U.S.C. § 205 does not prohibit an employee from assisting another in preparing their income tax returns.

In O'Neill v. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 220 F.3d 1354 (2000), the court of appeals determined that an employee does not act as "agent" for another person, under 18 U.S.C. § 205, unless the employee has actual or apparent authority to act on behalf of that person in dealings with the Government.

In O'Neill v. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 220 F.3d 1354 (2000), the court of appeals determined that an employee does not act as "agent" for another person, under 18 U.S.C. § 205, unless the employee has actual or apparent authority to act on behalf of that person in dealings with the Government.

OLC concluded that 18 U.S.C. § 209 ordinarily does not preclude outside royalty payments to employee-inventors who privately commercialize inventions for which the Government has permitted them to obtain patent rights.

OLC concluded that 18 U.S.C. § 209 ordinarily does not preclude outside royalty payments to employee-inventors who privately commercialize inventions for which the Government has permitted them to obtain patent rights.

OGE decided that an employee could have accepted a prize he won while attending a trade show on official assignment. The trade show was open to the general public and so was the contest. A test of knowledge as a condition of selecting finalists did not operate as a constraint on who could participate.

OGE is not aware of any statutory authority allowing it to categorically exempt the District of Columbia or its employees from the Federal conflict of interest laws contained in Chapter 11, Title 18 of the United States Code.

An employee is not necessarily precluded from acting in matters before an oversight group because his spouse receives a salary for service as the Executive Director of local nonprofit organizations having interests in matters before the group. Whether participation is permissible or appropriate will require an analysis of the facts in each situation.

OGE decided that the exemption at 18 U.S.C. § 208(b)(4) is limited to circumstances where the employee holds a financial interest by birthright, and even then, the exemption could not operate to exempt imputed financial interests of an organization for which the employee serves as a director.

In Van Ee v. Environmental Protection Agency, the D.C. Circuit concluded that 18 U.S.C. § 205(a)(2) does not prohibit the communications which the plaintiff in the case, a career employee, proposed to make.

OGE letter to an agency clarifying, 1) an agencies' responsibility to furnish OGE with all information necessary for OGE to perform its duties, 2) OGE's authority for interpreting its own regulations, and 3) an agencies' responsibility to report information concerning criminal violations.

Brokerage statements, as well as bank statements, personal spreadsheets, and any other financial materials, are acceptable as attachments in lieu of direct entries on an SF 278 only if they meet the statutory and regulatory reporting requirements.

OGE reissues a summary of 18 U.S.C. § 207. This edition incorporates three changes that were necessary to reflect statutory amendments in 1995 and 1996. [Note: Executive Order 12834, referenced in this DAEOgram, has been revoked.]

The prohibition on receipt of compensation for any representational services in 18 U.S.C. § 203 is limited to compensation in exchange for the provision of representational services to a third party, rendered either by the employee or an associate.

The prohibition on receipt of compensation for any representational services in 18 U.S.C. § 203 is limited to compensation in exchange for the provision of representational services to a third party, rendered either by the employee or an associate.

A former Government employee receiving a fixed rate of pay may not receive a mid-year pay adjustment if the formula used to make the adjustment is dependent on fees received for representational services rendered by another person in connection with a particular matter in which the United States is a party or has a direct and substantial interest.

A particular matter involving specific parties may begin when an agency identifies issues specifically associated with a potential matter, identifies matters of controversy and considers and plans courses of action. The fact that an application has not been received by the agency does not mean the matter is not before the agency.

A prospective employee who has an interest in a contingency fee case in which the United States is a party or has a direct and substantial interest must take steps to avoid the proscription in 18 U.S.C. § 203 before entering Government service.

A prospective employee who has an interest in a contingency fee case in which the United States is a party or has a direct and substantial interest must take steps to avoid the proscription in 18 U.S.C. § 203 before entering Government service.

A former Government employee who is working for a company that provides technical support on a contract in which the former Government employee participated personally and substantially could violate the 18 U.S.C. § 207 restrictions.

OGE summarizes the results of a survey of ethics officials assessing use of the OGE Optional Form 450-A, examining agency efforts to reduce the number of positions required to file confidential reports, and collecting the opinions of ethics officials on whether the confidential financial disclosure system is meeting its intended purpose.

A company's stock that is purchased through an employee stock investment plan will be taxed as ordinary earned income under Internal Revenue Service rules, which makes the stock ineligible for a certificate of divestiture.

A high-level official's attendance at a meeting should be closely reviewed to determine whether his attendance amounts to personal and substantial participation. Also, an overall acquisition strategy can be an integral part of the contracting process resulting in two separate programs being considered the same particular matter for 18 U.S.C.

OGE's amendments to the civil monetary penalties that may be imposed for certain violations of the Ethics in Government Act. affect the executive branchwide financial disclosure and outside employment regulations at 5 C.F.R. parts 2634 and 2636.

An employee may not use or permit the use of his official position or title in connection with private service on the board of directors of a nonprofit or other organization, even if that entity has qualified for participation in the Combined Federal Campaign.

Separate agencies with differing substantive responsibilities may reach different conclusions when determining whether a matter is the same particular matter for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 207. [The guidance in this advisory was reconsidered by OGE in 2008 in OGE Informal Advisory Opinion 08 x 6.]

The decision in the Sun-Diamond case does not disturb the noncriminal prohibitions on gifts found at 5 U.S.C. § 7353 or the Standards of Ethical Conduct for executive branch employees at 5 C.F.R. part 2635.

The decision in the Sun-Diamond case does not disturb the noncriminal prohibitions on gifts found at 5 U.S.C. § 7353 or the Standards of Ethical Conduct for executive branch employees at 5 C.F.R. part 2635.

The proposed consulting services will not violate 18 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1) or (a)(2). More facts are needed to determine if the former employee may serve as an expert witness in a class action lawsuit that may include individuals on whose claims the former employee worked as a Government employee. [cites former 5 C.F.R. part 2637]

A dollar-based test to determine whether an employee was "substantially" involved in a particular matter involving specific parties for purposes of the lifetime bar of 18 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1) is not consistent with positions taken by OGE and will lead to incorrect conclusions [cites former 5 C.F.R. part 2637]

The regulatory exemption at 5 C.F.R. § 2640.203(d) permits an employee to fully participate in particular matters affecting his Government position, salary and benefits, so long as those matters do not affect him individually or specially, and so long as they do not affect his interests beyond those arising from Government employment.

The regulatory exemption at 5 C.F.R. § 2640.203(d) permits an employee to fully participate in particular matters affecting his Government position, salary and benefits, so long as those matters do not affect him individually or specially, and so long as they do not affect his interests beyond those arising from Government employment.

OGE provides a summary, in question and answer format, of the rules and policies that apply to certificates of divestiture in most situations. [Note: The information in this memorandum is outdated. For OGE’s more recent Advisory on Certificates of Divestiture, please see DO-06-030.]

OGE provides a summary, in question and answer format, of the rules and policies that apply to certificates of divestiture in most situations. [Note: The information in this Advisory is outdated. For OGE’s more recent Advisory on Certificates of Divestiture, please see DO-06-030.]

OGE discusses the obligation to recuse under 18 U.S.C. § 208 or 5 C.F.R. § 2635.502 and suggests screening arrangements and other procedures that may be used to help ensure that a commitment to recuse is carried out effectively. OGE encloses a model recusal memorandum. [The guidance in this advisory was updated in 2014 by Legal Advisory LA-14-06.]

OGE discusses the obligation to recuse under 18 U.S.C. § 208 or 5 C.F.R. § 2635.502, and, suggests screening arrangements and other procedures that may be used to help ensure that a commitment to recuse is carried out effectively, and encloses a model recusal memorandum. [The guidance in this advisory was updated in 2014 by Legal Advisory LA-14-06.]

This memorandum examines some commonly encountered factual circumstances that arise under the gift exclusion at 5 C.F.R. § 2635.203(b)(5), specifically concerning prizes from drawings or contests entered while in an official duty status.

This memorandum examines some commonly encountered factual circumstances that arise under the gift exclusion at 5 C.F.R. § 2635.203(b)(5), specifically concerning prizes from drawings or contests entered while in an official duty status.

OGE updates and refines its previous guidance on the circumstances in which an employee has a conflict of interest in matters affecting the sponsor of his defined benefit plan. [modifies Formal Advisory Opinion 83 OGE 1]

OGE updates and refines its previous guidance on the circumstances in which an employee has a conflict of interest in matters affecting the sponsor of his defined benefit plan. [modifies "Formal Advisory Opinion 83 OGE 1"]

Certain of the ethics forms that OGE sponsors for executive branchwide use require periodic (usually three year) renewal of approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act or from the General Services Administration (GSA) under the interagency reports program.

At the time of this opinion, the sale of stock obtained through the exercise of incentive stock options did not result in capital gains under the Internal Revenue code. OGE could not issue a certificate of divestiture to the employee who owned the stock options.

OGE discusses the application of the widely attended gathering (WAG) exception to a charitable fundraising event, the determination of agency interest, and difference between the sponsor of the event versus a nonsponsor bearing the cost of attendance.

OGE announces the publication of disposition instructions by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) on the management of agency copies of Semiannual Expense Reports for Non-Federally Funded Travel (travel accepted under 31 U.S.C. § 1353) and related records.

OGE sets forth a framework for analyzing discounts issues and addresses the regulatory provisions that have particular relevance to discounts issues. [The guidance in this advisory that pertains to certain frequent flyer program benefits earned from Government-financed travel no longer reflects current law.]

OGE sets forth a framework for analyzing discounts issues and addresses the regulatory provisions that have particular relevance to discounts issues. [The guidance in this advisory that pertains to certain frequent flyer program benefits earned from Government-financed travel no longer reflects current law.]

OGE discusses whether the two-year representation bar of 18 U.S.C. § 207(a)(2) applies to a former military officer who seeks to represent a client in connection with a particular matter that was not pending in his agency's office until after he had gone on terminal leave prior but before he had separated from the agency.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has issued its decision on remand in Sanjour v. Environmental Protection Agency. The decision impacts enforcement of 5 C.F.R. § 2635.807(a), and its prohibition on employee acceptance of travel expenses in connection with teaching, speaking, or writing relating to official duties.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has issued its decision on remand in Sanjour v. Environmental Protection Agency. The decision impacts enforcement of 5 C.F.R. § 2635.807(a), and its prohibition on employee acceptance of travel expenses in connection with teaching, speaking, or writing relating to official duties.

Section 1353 of title 31, United States Code, authorizes the acceptance by executive branch agencies of payments for travel, subsistence, and related expenses from non-Federal sources in connection with the attendance of employees at certain meetings or similar functions. The statute provides that the head of each agency shall submit to the Director of the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) semiannual reports of payments of more than $250 accepted under this authority. The next semiannual report should be submitted to OGE not later than November 30, 1998, concerning payments received during the period beginning on April 1, 1998, and ending on September 30, 1998. Agencies are required to submit negative reports.

The Office of Legal Counsel issues an opinion addressing the question of whether 18 U.S.C. § 208 prohibits employees of the executive branch from serving, in an official capacity, as a member of the board of a private voluntary standards organization.

OGE summarizes ethics provisions that are relevant when an employee speaks at a private conference in an official or unofficial capacity, and comments on policy considerations that are relevant when an agency is deciding whether to provide an official speaker.

Only "personal and substantial" participation in a particular Government matter is restricted by 5 C.F.R. §§ 2635.402(c) and 2635.604(a), but circumstances may warrant that an employee be disqualified from any participation in certain matters under 5 C.F.R. § 2635.502(a).

OGE denied a request for a Certificate of Divestiture where the stock was acquired through a qualified incentive stock option plan and the sale would not comply with the required holding period. [Note: In 2004, the Internal Revenue Code was amended and now the sale of stock acquired under these circumstances may qualify for a Certificate of Divestiture in accordance with 26 U.S.C. § 421(d).]

Transportation received as part of official duties are accepted by the government, not the individual, and the Standards of Conduct do not apply. The matter must be resolved by the agency, determining if the transportation is a gift (or part of the contract) and whether the agency can accept a gift (generally prohibited without statutory authority).

The OGE poem, "A Different Point of View," summarizes key provisions of the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch and certain of the conflict of interest statutes in title 18 of the United States Code.

Inclusion of a federal employee organization's name on another organization's letterhead would not constitute representational activity by the Federal employee members of the organization even if the other organization made representations to the Government using the letterhead.

Under current law, the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) is required to submit biennially a report to Congress summarizing the actions taken in the ethics program during the previous two years and providing any other appropriate information. The report covering OGE's activities from January 1, 1996 through December 31, 1997 has just been issued, and a copy is attached.

OGE withdraws its request that agency reviewers add a statement to nominee financial disclosure reports noting that the information on the report has been updated in accordance with required time periods.

There is no per se ethics violation if a contractor uses a federal employee's resume in an agency procurement process. It is possible that use of that resume, in certain circumstances, could violate conflicts of interest statutes or standards of ethical conduct.

The material in the public financial disclosure report of a nominee must be made current by the nominee or the agency reviewer (pursuant to specific authorization from the nominee) prior to submitting the report to this Office in final form.

A minor clarifying amendment establishes that the agency head's (or his designee's) decision upon review of complaints regarding the designation of employee positions for filing confidential financial disclosure reports is final and conclusive for all purposes.

Employee was a senior employee by reason of 18 U.S.C. § 207(c)(2)(A)(i), because she was employed in a position paid under the Executive Schedule, despite continuing to receive pay under the SES. Therefore, her former agency under 18 U.S.C. § 207(c) and EO 12834 is all of the agency, as the component designation under § 207(h) doesn't apply. [Note: Executive Order 12834 has been revoked.]

The basic rate of pay that makes an individual subject to "senior employee" restrictions of 18 U.S.C. § 207(c) refers to the employee's actual pay (salary), not the pay scale. The basic rate of pay that makes an individual subject to public financial disclosure requirements, refers to the minimum pay of a particular level on the pay scale.

Under 5 C.F.R. §§ 2635.201 and 2635.203, the government employee was allowed to accept gifts from his wife's employer, because it was not a prohibited source. Employee was not required to disclose the gifts because they were given to his wife totally independent of the employee.

OGE did not create an exception to 18 U.S.C. § 207(c) for a new director position within an agency because that agency did not provide sufficient evidence to show that the imposition of section 207(c) would cause undue hardship within the meaning of section 207(c)(2)(C)(i).

Discusses whether a board of presidentially appointed federal employees who approve free attendance for the board at gatherings, satisfied the procedural requirements when determining that the agency's interest in attending is outweighed by the risk of impropriety.

OGE does not have the authority to waive the application of the 14 fundamental principles established by Executive Order 12674 or the implementing regulation at 5 C.F.R. § Part 2635. OGE authorizes a pilot test of electronic filing for confidential financial disclosure system.

Executive branch departments and agencies are authorized to adopt a standardized certificate of no new interests (OGE Optional Form 450-A) in lieu of an annual OGE Form 450, for regular employee annual confidential disclosure filers who can make the required certifications.

In situations where a waiver is sought with respect to service in an official capacity as an officer or director of a private organization, the Office of Government Ethics will provide consultation only with respect to whether the procedures set forth under paragraph (a) of 5 C.F.R. § 2640.301 have been followed, and whether the factors set forth under paragraph (b) of that section have been adequately considered.

"In February 1997, OGE conducted a survey to learn more about the experiences, opinions, and needs of agency ethics officials regarding various facets of their agency ethics training programs. Ninety-four ethics officials responded to our survey questionnaire, with many adding valuable written comments. The report on the survey results is attached.

OGE discusses the changes made to 18 U.S.C. § 207 by the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 and the related technical amendments enacted in 1990. Certain provisions of section 207 apply to District of Columbia employees. [cites former 5 C.F.R. part 2637]

Pending the final court order clarifying the reach of the appellate decision in Sanjour v. U.S., OGE issued an interim policy about the prohibition on accepting travel expenses connected with certain unofficial speech.

Pending the final court order clarifying the reach of the appellate decision in Sanjour v. U.S., OGE issued an interim policy about the prohibition on accepting travel expenses connected with certain unofficial speech.

5 C.F.R. § 2635.502 establishes a mechanism for an employee to determine whether "appearances" require his disqualification from an assignment and to seek authorization from an agency designee before he does participate.

The Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice, issued a memorandum addressing whether 18 U.S.C. § 208 would prohibit Federal Bureau of Investigation personnel from serving on the boards of directors of non-Federal nonprofit entities in their official capacities.

The Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice, issued a memorandum addressing whether 18 U.S.C. § 208 would prohibit Federal Bureau of Investigation personnel from serving on the boards of directors of non-Federal nonprofit entities in their official capacities.

OGE comments on whether 5 C.F.R. § 2635.502 should preclude a Board member at an agency from participating in a meeting, about a rulemaking, if the Board member's subordinate is discussing employment with a trade association for the industry affected by that rulemaking. [The guidance in this letter was modified by OGE Informal Advisory Letter 06 x 1 and DAEOgram DO-06-002.]

In the Spring 1996 edition of the Ethics Newsgram, the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) announced future changes to improve the administration of the ethics agreement compliance system for Presidential appointees confirmed by the Senate. This DAEOgram provides more details on those changes and how they will affect the system at executive branch agencies.

OGE discusses the ethics regulations that apply in the case of a Federal employee, who is a high-ranking official of a department, and who works for a presidential campaign on issues related to his department's program.

A "discount" on automobile insurance offered to those who were a GS-11 or above was not a gift within the meaning of the Standards of Conduct. The discount is based on actuarial statistics demonstrating that the cost of providing insurance to those in the discount group is less than the cost of providing insurance to others.

As part of our ongoing efforts to evaluate ethics programs and improve ethics in the Government, the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) recently completed a review of the structure of ethics offices within the executive branch. Accordingly, I would like to share with you the results of this review.

The primary statute applicable to negotiating for future employment by an executive branch official is 18 U.S.C. § 208. The post-employment restrictions of 18 U.S.C. § 207 contains an exemption from the application of its restrictions for representations made on behalf of Indian tribes. [Note: Executive Order 12834, referenced in this letter, has been revoked.]

OGE publishes interim rule making technical amendments to various sections of the Standards of Conduct so that they conform with the Hatch Act Reform Amendments of 1993 (HARA). These changes do not purport to provide substantive guidance as to the HARA.

OGE published a final rule to revise the widely attended gatherings gift exception at 5 C.F.R. § 2635.204(g). One of the amendments provides that agencies can authorize their employees to accept gifts of free attendance at widely attended gatherings from persons other than the sponsors of the event.

Section 101 (h) and (n) of E.O. 12674 does not conflict with 5 U.S.C. § 3110 (the nepotism statute) or 18 U.S.C. § 208. Spouses could work in the same office, but one spouse could not hire the other spouse to work there, or even recommend the other spouse for promotion.

The amendment to section 205 allows employees to represent certain nonprofit organizations before the Government, and the amendment to section 207 added an exception allowing former high-level officials to represent certain candidates.

The amendment to section 205 allows employees to represent certain nonprofit organizations before the Government, and the amendment to section 207 added an exception allowing former high-level officials to represent certain candidates.

OGE's Director determined that although a full year had passed between the employee's improper retirement and reinstatement, the situation did not qualify the employee for a waiver from 18 USC 207 restrictions, and the OGE determined that a waiver should not be used to mitigate the consequences of the previous, improper action.

OGE determined that the former employee was barred from representing an individual before a Federal agency because his involvement in the matter while a government employee, while not time consuming, could be interpreted as "substantial" for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 207.

By appealing a decision in favor of the agency, the employee took a position contrary to his agency, and the agency claimed this action violated 18 U.S.C. § 205 and the agency's own ethics regulations. OGE determined the individual was not necessarily representing an intervening plaintiff in the suit, nor did the employee violate the current standards of conduct.

Under 5 CFR 2637, an agency may only submit such a waiver if the former employee's involvement in the matter for the private employer is needed on a continuous and comprehensive basis. The OGE determined, based on the employee's experience and expertise and anticipated work, that such a waiver could be granted.

OGE extends the temporary waiver of the restrictions in 18 U.S.C. § 207(c) and (f) so that it will remain effective through October 31, 1996, or until the effective date of any remedial legislation, whichever occurs earlier.

OGE determined that assets controlled solely by a spouse could be considered financial interests for a government employee that would trigger the appearance of or actual conflicts of interest, and could require divestiture.

The OGE determined based on information provided, that the former employee could represent private clients before the agency. The OGE found that rules requiring a cooling off period did not apply to the employee.

Enclosed in this envelope is a copy of the Office of Government Ethics' (OGE) Fourth Biennial Report to Congress. This report is required by statute to be submitted every two years by the end of March.

The OGE determined that for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 207, an organization's study and agency A and B's rule making were part of the same mandate, and thus were part of the same particular matter. The OGE also concluded the employee's participation was personal and substantial.

The ethics laws and regulations do not preclude an employee from serving in a leadership position with a private partisan organization provided the employee does not take actions while serving that violate an ethics provision, such as 18 U.S.C. § 205.

An executive branch employee who has a qualified diversified trust (a blind trust) under the Ethics in Government Act may not instruct the independent trustee of the trust to sell all equity positions and invest in bonds.

The Office of Legal Counsel of DOJ issued an opinion stating that the recent Supreme Court decision in NTEU v. U.S. made the statutory prohibition on honoraria unenforceable. Other restrictions remain in effect.

The Office of Legal Counsel of DOJ issued an opinion stating that the recent Supreme Court decision in NTEU v. U.S. made the statutory prohibition on honoraria unenforceable. Other restrictions remain in effect.

Section 20 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-65) amended the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to require new categories of amount or value on public financial disclosure reports for assets, income and liabilities exceeding $l million (except for interests of a spouse or dependent child, unless jointly held with the filer). This applies to all SF 278 reports filed on or after January 1, 1996.

An agency has authority under 5 C.F.R. § 2635.106(b) to take corrective action for ethics violations by its employees. An agency must look to its own regulations for authority to conduct investigations into ethics violations.

Temporary waiver extends to employees whose basic rate of pay on December 28, 1995 was less than that of the rate of basic pay payable for level V of the Executive Schedule and as a direct result of EO 12984 but who would have their basic rate of pay increased to an amount equal to or greater than the rate of basic pay for level V of the ES.

If the rate of basic pay for Senior Executive Service (SES)-type positions is increased, many employees in SES and similar positions will be "Senior Employees" for purposes of the one-year post-employment bar in 18 U.S.C. § 207(c). [Note: Executive Order 12834, referenced in this DAEOgram, has been revoked.]

An agency's general counsel who has been asked to serve as an uncompensated member of the board of directors of a nonprofit advocacy group musts comply with the restrictions in 5 U.S.C. app. 4 § 502(a)(2).

If an individual served (while a current Government employee) as a representative in an EEO complaint pursuant to the exception at 18 U.S.C. § 205(d), he should not be deemed to have "participated" in the complaint "as such officer or employee" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1).

OGE discusses the issues that arise for executive branch employees participating in privatizing Government functions. Issues arise under the Procurement Integrity Act and under the conflict of interest statutes in Title 18 of the U.S. Code.

OGE discusses the background of the earned income ban, the meaning of "earned income," and several questions related to the honoraria ban in 5 U.S.C. app., § 501(b). [Note: The honoraria ban was subsequently held unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. National Treasury Employees Union, 513 U.S. 454 (1995).]

Multiple ethics and non-ethics issue arise when a former Government employee proposes to have a nonprofit organization which he founded enter into an agreement with his former agency to coordinate the agency's anniversary celebration.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit sustains a First Amendment challenge to a portion of 5 C.F.R. § 2635.807, the section within the Standards of Conduct entitled "Teaching, speaking, and writing."

An agency has the authority, not subject to review by OGE, to determine that an employee must take leave in order to pursue private employment opportunities if it decides that the employee's disqualification would materially impair his ability to do his Government job.

OGE analyzes whether an employee has a financial interest in a former employer (a law firm) that will be affected directly and predictably by his investigation of a company that is related to another company that was a client of the firm. OGE also addresses appearance concerns.

OGE has authority to issue Certificates of Divestiture under the provisions of section 1043 of the Internal Revenue Code only to "eligible individuals." State employees and resident relatives of Federal employees are not "eligible individuals."

Once an employee has brought alleged fraud to the attention of the appropriate authorities for their investigation, there can be no necessity for ongoing unauthorized use of Government resources by the employee to conduct an independent investigation.

The confidential financial disclosure regulations permitted filers to attach a spreadsheet containing the required information to the SF 450, as long as the information is presented in a clear, concise and understandable manner.

OGE allows agencies to collect follow-on new entrant reports simultaneously once each year for all its term SGEs or for groups of term SGEs such as specific advisory committees rather than on the anniversary of the appointment.

This responds to your letter dated January 13, 1995, in which you requested written advice from this Office on whether you and a member of your staff could continue your representation of a former [agency] employee in a security access eligibility proceeding before [a] Department.

The U.S. Supreme Court held that the honoraria ban in the Ethics in Government Act violates the First Amendment rights of the persons on whose behalf the case was brought. OGE notes that employees continue to be subject to other statutory and regulatory provisions that restrict their ability to accept honoraria under certain circumstances.

OGE updates departments and agencies on supplemental standards regulations. OGE also requests the cooperation of agencies in completing the process of revocation of superseded portions of their old standards of conduct.

OGE addresses issues arising under 18 U.S.C. § 208 when the spouse of the Government employee is a partner in a law firm. The spouse's clients include major institutions, some of which appear before the employee's agency.

The acceptance by an executive branch employee of a "favorable price" based upon a company's incentive program would violate the Standards of Ethical Conduct. Such a favorable price would fall within the definition of a "gift" under the Standards. An employee's eligibility is based upon the employee's official position and acceptance is prohibited.

SGEs who do not perform the duties of their position for more than 60 days in a calendar year do not file SF 278s. SGEs are not subject to a 60-day threshold service requirement for filing new entrant SF 450s. SGEs should file SF 450s at the time of their initial one-year appointment and upon any reappointment or redesignation.

OGE reminds agencies to provide the Director of OGE with follow-up reports of any indictment, information, or declination of prosecution as well as any disciplinary or corrective action initiated, taken, or to be taken by the agency.

OGE believes it to be expedient to advise employees that the Department of Justice has not issued a definitive ruling on whether the terms "employee" and "employment" as used in 18 U.S.C. § 208 include an independent contractor or consulting situation. Employees should be counseled to seek waivers with this fact in mind.

18 U.S.C. § 205 bars an employee from representing an employee organization before the Government unless it was part of the employee's official duties, or met one of the exceptions in the statute. There is no indication that there is a general exemption from the prohibition for employees when representing employee interest groups.

OGE reminds agencies of the requirement to notify it of referrals to the Attorney General of possible violations of federal conflict of interest statutes and recommends that they use the OGE Form 202 to do so.

OGE advises an agency on the application of 18 U.S.C. § 207(a)(2) to a former employee who had official responsibilities relating to the agency's insurance program. OGE discusses whether the restriction would apply to an individual that was processing insurance registration forms.

Follow-up to 94x10(1): The section 2635.502(a) analysis is not required simply because a person with whom the employee has a covered relationship has a financial interest in a matter. Only when a household member has a financial interest in a matter is the employee required by section 2635.502(a) to undertake the reasonable person analysis.

The one-year restriction on certain senior personnel applicable under 18 U.S.C. § 207(c)(1) may be waived by the Director of OGE in certain circumstances pursuant to the authority of 18 U.S.C. § 207(c)(2)(C). Neither the statute nor the implementing regulation provides any authority to grant a waiver to an individual personally.

OGE found that fees for legal or other services, like any other liability, are required to be reported unless they fall within one of the exceptions specifically enumerated in 5 U.S.C. app. § 102(a)(4).

The U.S. Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari filed by the Department of Justice asking the Court to review the decision of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in NTEU v. United States concerning the honoraria ban at 5 U.S.C. app. § 501(b).

Although an employee has a "covered relationship" with the employee's brother under 5 C.F.R. § 2635.502, the employee is not required to obtain authorization before participating in a hearing because the brother is not a party and does not represent a party.

OGE recommends that agencies resolve questions about Federal employees' nonmonetary charity drives at the Federal workplace by referring to the provisions of 5 C.F.R. part 2635, particularly the provisions in subpart G, and the provisions of applicable GSA regulations.

The Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch state that all executive branch employees are responsible for satisfying in good faith their just financial obligations, especially those that are imposed by law. Agencies do not have the authority to act as collection agents on behalf of an employee's creditors.

Determining whether a representational activity is permitted by 18 U.S.C. § 205 requires deciding whether the activity is in the proper discharge of an employee's official duties. It must be determined on a case by case basis if the employee's representation in the proceeding is inconsistent with the faithful performance of the employee's duties.

An agency's creating, publishing, and keeping current a list of Department prohibited sources under 5 C.F.R. § 2635.203(d)(5) would present a number of problems. An organization that is a prohibited source with respect to one of the separate components would not necessarily be a prohibited source with respect to another component.

OGE discusses whether a particular agency is considered an agency under the Standards of Ethical Conduct. The agency treated itself as an executive agency for purposes of application of the ethics laws and regulation. As a result, OGE concluded that the Standards apply to the agency's employees.

A Government employee seeking to represent a private party in a Federal court action must take great care to ensure that he or she does not violate 18 U.S.C. § 205 even where the United States is not a named party. Other statutes must also be considered, particularly those that restrict a Government employee from engaging in outside employment.

The Department of Justice determines that it will not seek to enforce the honoraria ban with respect to executive branch employees who receive honoraria between September 28, 1993, and the date on which the Supreme Court issues its decision in NTEU v. United States.

OGE advises on whether an employee can accept a reception in their honor from their former non-governmental employer. Under 5 C.F.R. § 2635.203, free attendance to a reception can be a prohibited gift if given because of the employee's official position. However, the "widely attended gathering" exception may apply, allowing the employee to attend.

OGE reviews and comments on proposed procedures for handling complaints that administrative law judges at an agency have engaged in misconduct during the hearings and appeals process. OGE comments on supplementing provisions of the Standards of Ethical Conduct and how different conflict of interest laws apply to special Government employees.

OGE discusses the factors to be considered in order to determine whether a Government employee can participate as a speaker in a conference conducted by a non-Governmental entity. OGE also discusses the parameters outlined in 5 C.F.R. § 2635.807(b) for use of Government title in nonofficial speaking engagements.

5 C.F.R. § 2635.803 provides that, when required to do so by agency supplemental regulations, an employee shall obtain prior approval before engaging in an outside activity. This section applies to uncompensated as well as compensated outside activities.

Employee’s may be permitted by their agency to use work hours to complete the SF 450, the information required on the form is targeted at identifying conflicts of interest, and supervisors may review employee SF 450 forms but such information is strictly protected by executive branch principles of confidentiality and the Federal Privacy Act.

OGE responds to suggestions to improve the SF 450 form, such as allowing employees to attach standard brokerage statements in lieu of actual form entries; allowing employees to separately identify assets held by the employee, spouse, and dependent children; using the excepted investment fund (EIF) concept; and using different disclosure forms for special Government employees (SGE).

Excepted investment funds (EIF) allow for reduced disclosure because these funds are widely held, widely diversified or publicly traded, and not self-directed. However, in some circumstances, EIF funds may not be as widely diversified and employees may have knowledge of the fund’s holdings, presenting a potential to violate 18 U.S.C. § 208.

The justifications for the submission of an SF 450 financial disclosure form are to detect potential matters which might be expected to present conflicts between an employee’s private financial interests and official responsibilities and to help employees avoid 18 U.S.C. § 208 violations.

The criminal conflict of interest statute, 18 U.S.C. § 208 is a primary justification for public and confidential financial disclosure requirements. The SF 450 form is limited to matters expected to present conflicts between an employee’s private financial interests and official responsibilities with careful weighing of privacy rights.

Waiver determinations set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 208(d)(1) must be balanced against the nondisclosure mandate of SF 450 information set forth in 5 U.S.C. app. § 107(a)(2). Agencies may withhold from their waiver determinations any portions entitled to exemption from required release pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Two recent civil penalty cases brought by the U.S. Department of Justice pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 216(b) were settled with the defendant in each case making a payment of $5,000 to the United States Treasurer.

The SF 450 form is limited to matters – including disclosure of a spouse’s financial information – which might be expected to present conflicts between an employee’s private financial interests and official responsibilities with careful weighing of privacy rights.

5 C.F.R. §§ 2637.101(c)(8) and 2637.201(e) and CACI., Inc. v. U.S. give weight to an agency’s opinion regarding the application of 18 U.S.C. § 207 to one of its former employees. Formal action is not necessarily required for something to be a "particular matter." Indeed, internal deliberations within an agency may be a "particular matter."

18 U.S.C. § 203 does not restrict a compensation arrangement for former federal employees that is based on the estimated receipts from firm billings for services provided after Government service rather than the actual receivables of the firm (which may include fees for representations made while the partners were still Government employees).

Usually federal compensation creates government employment status; however, commission members are not government employees where the statute establishing the commission states that its members shall not be considered employees. That the members are federally appointed for a term and counsel on policy does not alone create an employment status.

Under 5 C.F.R. §§ 2635.203 and 2635.204, employees of an agency with a facility located next to a State University, may not accept free borrowing privileges at the University libraries, discounts to University events where the rate is not broadly available to all government employees, or discounted shuttle rates below market value.

Under 5 C.F.R § 2634.406(a)(2), eligibility to serve as a fiduciary of a qualified trust is limited to financial institutions, not more than 10 percent of which are owned or controlled by a single individual. The regulation fully conforms to 5 U.S.C. app. §102(f).

No government-wide statute or regulation bars a federal employee from buying into a mutual fund that holds stock in companies doing business with the employee's agency; however, specific agencies may have such rules. 18 U.S.C. § 208(a) bars an employee from acting in a matter having a direct and predictable effect on a company in which he owns stock.

18 U.S.C. § 207(a) prohibits a former government employee from making communications to federal agencies and courts concerning funds to resettle a community when the employee was involved negotiating an related agreement while employed by the government. Section 207(a) does not bar post-employment communications to Congress or legislative staff.

An employee has a "covered relationship" with the employee's private attorney's partner under 5 C.F.R. § 2635.502, but that relationship does not automatically require recusal where the partner is representing a client before the employee's agency.

The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upholds the district court injunction against the honoraria ban at 5 U.S.C. app. § 501(b). [Note: The honoraria ban was subsequently held unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. National Treasury Employees Union, 513 U.S. 454 (1995).]

An agency ethics official should look at several factors to determine whether an entity that is related to a corporation (a prohibited source) is a subsidiary controlled by that corporation for purposes of the Standards of Conduct and the fundraising prohibition in 5 C.F.R. § 2635.808(c).

18 U.S.C. § 209 and Crandon v. U.S. do not bar payments from a legal fund on behalf of a Federal employee if persons unconnected to the employee's official duties oversee the fund, the donors' identities remain unknown, the money directly pays the legal fees, the donations are not from prohibited sources, and the employee does not solicit the funds.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 208(a) and 5 C.F.R. part 2635, an executive branch employee is not prohibited from retaining reemployment rights with a former private employer; however, the employee may not participate personally and substantially in a particular matter that would affect that former employer, unless the employee has obtained a statutory waiver.

Fundraising issues covered in this opinion include participating in fundraising as part of one's official duties, complying with the Combined Federal Campaign regulations, and using one's official title.

Fundraising issues covered in this opinion include participating in fundraising as part of one's official duties, complying with the Combined Federal Campaign regulations, and using one's official title.

The OGE said such free attendance at meetings would probably be prohibited by 5 C.F.R. § 2635.202, unless allowed as a widely attended gathering, for which the OGE determined this did not qualify. The OGE determined that a blanket determination that meetings of this time are in the agency's interest was inadequate.

Clinton Administration Ethics Pledge--The Attorney General issues a Statement of Covered Activities describing the activities on behalf of a foreign government or foreign political party that will require registration. [Note: Executive Order 12834 has been revoked.]

18 U.S.C. § 207 doesn't prohibit employee from serving on the board and may fully participate absent an appearance before the government. The OGE also determined that the nonprofit's program is not the same as the agency's program, but the employee should be careful about coordinating between the two.

Questions discussed: (1) if allowing fundraising on official time must be from statute; (2) if fundraising on official time can be done without statutory or regulatory authority; (3) must the determination be by the head of the agency; (4) when allowed to fundraise on behalf of a nonprofit; (5) whether this clause eliminates the need for a waiver.

An employee may receive free admission to attend a widely attended gathering (which must be of mutual interest to a number of parties) of a purely social nature of the agency designee determines the employee's attendance is in the best interest of the agency. Also discussed specific press dinner events.

Individuals appointed to represent a group in an advisory role are not considered federal employees for purposes of the conflict of interest statutes. They are also not required to file financial disclosure forms.

The OGE Director can grant a waiver to 18 U.S.C. § 207(c) restrictions if the restrictions impose undue hardship on the requesting agency, and that granting a waiver would not create the potential for undue influence or unfair advantage. An exemption was never requested of the agency, and is not applied for individuals.

The OGE determined that when a waiver was offered by Agency A to members of an office, and that office was later transferred to Agency B, Agency B had the authority to deny continuation of that waiver.

Discusses rules for divestiture, contemplated sale of asset management company, and states that a divestiture cannot leave the official with a substantive stake in the company which is subject to the future performance of its business affairs, as that would provide an unfair or unintended benefit to the government official.

For purposes of applying the restriction of 18 U.S.C. § 207(c), the fact that the employee holds a position that has been held by persons paid at ES-4 is irrelevant. The critical factor is not the position, but the employee's ES level, i.e., the employee's basic rate of pay.

The OGE stated that since the honoraria ban was statutorily created by Congress, and did not include certain exceptions for teaching, speaking and writing outside of a federal employees official capacity (though many criticized this lack of exception), the employee was required to return an honoraria he received.

Because the group being solicited were not grouped based on their connection to the agency, even though some in the group would individually be considered prohibited sources, this solicitation would not be considered targeted solicitation under 5 C.F.R. § 2635.808. Also discusses free admission to event, and fundraising in official capacity.

The Standards of Conduct (5 C.F.R. part 2635) prohibits executive branch employees from personally using public office for private gain, and may not use federal property for other than authorized activities. Decisions as to exceptions to this rule are within the Department's discretion.

An employee may during the probationary period retain conflicting interests and simply recuse himself from matters involving those conflicting interests, so long as it does not conflict with agency supplementary regulations.

The OGE determined that the reports would not likely run afoul of 18 U.S.C. § 207(b), but that the former federal employee should be careful not to disclose unreleased information he obtained while working for the government.

Discusses how the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 restricted federal employees from receiving certain honoraria for speaking, articles, or appearances, and how the regulations in 5 C.F.R. parts 2635 and 2636 may affect the federal employee and his ability to receive an honoraria.

The EO requires certain appointees to sign an ethics pledge establishing a contractual commitment regarding their activities after they have been employed as "senior appointees" or participated personally and substantially in trade negotiations. Memo discusses details of who must sign, what to sign, when it must be signed, waiver and enforcement provisions. [Note: Executive Order 12834 has been revoked.]

The Clinton Administration ethics pledges will not apply to individuals in career positions, regardless of their pay grade, nor to the non-career personnel of the former G.H.W. Bush Administration who may be asked to stay on after January 1993 for a brief period. [Note: Executive Order 12834 has been revoked.]

The OGE believes an obligation to report "waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption" encompasses an obligation to report a violation of a Federal statute, such as the Computer Security Act of 1987. However they do not interpret the Executive Order provides authority to require a written requirement.

Eligible former senior employees may engage in representational activities before a component of their former department or agency if that component has been designated by the Director of OGE pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 207(h) as a separate agency or bureau within the department or agency.

Pre-meeting activities, such as reviewing written materials, by advisory committee members in preparation for a meeting might rise to the level of personal and substantial participation under 18 U.S.C. § 208(a). Waivers under 18 U.S.C. § 208(b)(3) must be granted prior to such participation by an advisory committee member.

Loans between superiors and their subordinates are to be discouraged. Because of the debtor-creditor relationship, the subordinate would be a person with whom the superior would have a "covered relationship" within the meaning of 5 C.F.R. § 2635.502(b)(1).

OGE discusses the filing cycle for confidential financial disclosure (Oct 1 through Sep 30), the filing of the form by special Government employees, the designation of positions as filing positions, and several other issues.

The honoraria ban applied to an employee who gave a ten-minute speech as a panelist at a symposium. [Note: The honoraria ban was subsequently held unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. National Treasury Employees Union, 513 U.S. 454 (1995).]

The Standards of Conduct prohibit a Federal employee from soliciting funds or services from representatives of companies doing business with the Federal Government and using those funds for purposes of the private organization.

A charitable contribution made on behalf of a Federal employee may not qualify as a gift if it were made as part of a settlement. However, individual circumstances must be evaluated to determine whether such a contribution is consistent with the Standards of Ethical Conduct prohibiting gifts from outside sources.

A series of articles produced in a magazine is excluded from the honoraria ban only if each article, of at least three, is intended to be part of a series and not a stand-alone piece. [Note: The honoraria ban was subsequently held unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. National Treasury Employees Union, 513 U.S. 454 (1995).]

A noncareer member of the Senior Executive Service was deemed to have taken compensation from an outside position that involved a fiduciary relationship in violation of 5 U.S.C. app. § 502 and 5 C.F.R. § 2636.303(b) when he received payments from his medical practice while serving as a public official.

OGE discusses the application of the honoraria ban to a District of Columbia employee who received payment for appearances made as a legal educator that did not involve his official duties. [Note: The honoraria ban was subsequently held unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. National Treasury Employees Union, 513 U.S. 454 (1995).]

OGE discusses whether a senior Government employee could preclude conflict of interest questions under the "seeking employment" restriction by giving his resume to an employment search firm and asking that it not disclose to him the identity of those to whom the resume has been distributed.

OGE summarizes the changes to the public financial disclosure system and to the qualified trust program which the new interim regulation implements. OGE also highlights the differences between the public financial disclosure system and the new confidential system.

OGE advises on whether an individual can evade violating the honoraria ban by diverting funds to a third-party charitable organization. [Note: The honoraria ban was subsequently held unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. National Treasury Employees Union, 513 U.S. 454 (1995).]

Certificates of Divestiture are available to parties who qualify as "eligible persons" under the Internal Revenue Code. Such certificates were not intended to be generally available to trustees of a trust which is eligible under the code section, but rather were intended to be available only where all alternative remedies were impracticable.

The GAO regulations determining that frequent flyer miles received by employees during official travel are agency property do not conflict with OGE's previous advice concerning the acceptance of gifts. [The guidance in this advisory regarding retention of frequent flyer miles is no longer applicable, see Section 1116 of Public Law 107-107, December 28, 2001 and 41 CFR 301-53.]

Where an agency has determined that an employee has a conflict of interest under 18 U.S.C. § 208 with the outside employment of his/her spouse, and has determined not to grant the employee a § 208(b)(1) waiver, OGE is not statutorily enabled to hear appeal or review of the employing agency’s discretion decision.

An attorney who was a Federal employee is not restricted from representing a union in litigation against his former agency on a particular matter on which he did not participate personally and substantially. [The employee terminated employment prior to January 1, 1991 and was subject to the former version of 18 U.S.C. § 207.]

The incidental presentation of two non-monetary honorary awards by a university to Federal employees was unlikely to violate the gift regulations that were found in the new proposed Standards of Ethical Conduct at 5 C.F.R. part 2635. [cited former 5 C.F.R. part 735]

When Congress has specifically provided that the Federal Government must continue to pay employees their usual Government salaries during the time they are engaged in union activities, those employees should be considered "on the job" for purposes of pay and compensation. Any additional payments made by outside sources would violate 18 U.S.C. § 209.

The amendment at 5 C.F.R. § 2636.203(a)(13) sets out specific requirements about the timing of payment for a series of speaking engagements. The amendment is not retroactive. [Note: The honoraria ban was subsequently held unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. National Treasury Employees Union, 513 U.S. 454 (1995).]

The honoraria ban does not apply to works of fiction, poetry, lyrics, or scripts. [Note: The honoraria ban was subsequently held unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. National Treasury Employees Union, 513 U.S. 454 (1995).]

OGE discusses what rules an agency attorney might violate in publishing a booklet. Questions arise as to whether the provided information discloses non-public information and the possible effect on official duties. (Cites former 5 C.F.R. Part 735)

The award of a prize for winning a competition does not fall within the meaning of a payment for an appearance, speech or article. [Note: The honoraria ban was subsequently held unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. National Treasury Employees Union, 513 U.S. 454 (1995).]

OGE discusses the application of 18 U.S.C. § 208 to an employee who both directly and indirectly acts on particular matters concerning a private contractor that would have a direct and predictable effect on the financial interest of his spouse, an employee and shareholder of the private contractor.

OGE responds to concerns about the burden of statutorily mandated financial disclosure on filers and discusses how such disclosure ensures a lower percentage of actual and perceived conflicts of interest.

OGE discusses the effect of the honoraria ban on an agency attorney's ability to teach non-traditional continuing legal education courses. [Note: The honoraria ban was subsequently held unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. National Treasury Employees Union, 513 U.S. 454 (1995).]

OGE discusses the effect of the honorarium ban on the acceptance of monetary payment for the teaching of a part-time course not related to the employee's official duties. [Note: The honoraria ban was subsequently held unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. National Treasury Employees Union, 513 U.S. 454 (1995).]

OGE discusses both individual and general waivers of the conflict of interest restrictions found at 18 U.S.C. § 208, and the inapplicability of such waivers to conflict of interest prohibitions found in individual agencies' enabling acts.

OGE discusses whether a raffle may be held on Government property if the proceeds will be donated to a charitable organization or to an employee welfare and recreation association. [Refers to 5 C.F.R. Part 735]

OGE provides guidance on the effect of the honoraria ban on the acceptance of compensation for writing non-fiction books as well as the permissibility of diverting honoraria to a charitable entity in lieu of personal acceptance. [Note: The honoraria ban was subsequently held unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. National Treasury Employees Union, 513 U.S. 454 (1995).]

OGE agrees with an agency's implementation of the Standards of Conduct to bar an employee from selling a computer software package of the agency's advisory opinions he created on his own time, as such outside activity would constitute an appearance of a conflict of interest.

OGE advises that the term "procurement official" found at 41 U.S.C. § 423(p)(3) (Procurement Integrity Act) likely does not extend to a business entity, such as a corporation, but rather only to individuals.

18 U.S.C. § 207 barred an employee from representing his employer (company B) on a contract to the Government. The employee had worked personally and substantially on the contract with company A while a Government employee, The contract was later assigned to company B. The particular matter continued through both an amendment and a party change.

OGE provides a general overview of the honoraria ban and its effect on employees who may wish to write books. [Note: The honoraria ban was subsequently held unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. National Treasury Employees Union, 513 U.S. 454 (1995).]

OGE addresses an agency’s question about whether a Government employee may live with, and pay rent to, another Government employee who works in the same agency and is within the first employee's area of supervision.

Graduates who accept employment with the Federal Government during the period of their deferral from employment with private law firms have an agreement concerning prospective employment for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 208. The deferral payments the graduates receive would not be made to compensate them for services as Federal employees.

The honoraria ban does not prohibit an employee from receiving compensation for writing short stories that are works of fiction and certain other activities. [Note: The honoraria ban was subsequently held unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. National Treasury Employees Union, 513 U.S. 454 (1995).]

Pending the outcome of litigation, it is permissible for an employee to ask a person who has agreed to pay him an honorarium to establish an escrow account with provision for payment of the honorarium in the event of a final decision. [Note: The honoraria ban was subsequently held unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. National Treasury Employees Union, 513 U.S. 454 (1995).]

A special Government employee (SGE) who serves in a volunteer capacity as the executive director of a nonprofit, tax-exempt educational organization is subject to several restrictions on his participation in agency matters pertaining to the non-profit.

In his civilian life, a National Guard pilot was a stockholder and president of a company that provided refueling services at airports. OGE analyzes whether he would violate 18 U.S.C. § 208 if he were to refuel at an airport served by his company.

OGE discusses whether the application of the honoraria ban would prohibit a Federal employee from accepting compensation for teaching a series of three-day seminars on a particular topic sponsored and funded by a state university.

Although the prosecution by a Government employee of a patent application for a private party for compensation is generally subject to the prohibition of 18 U.S.C. § 203, the prohibition will not apply if the employee is a special Government employee (SGE). This opinion also addresses the status of military reservists as SGEs.

An agency may accept reimbursement of the travel expenses incurred by its employees to attend training provided by a second agency. Because the reimbursement is paid to the agency and not to the employees, the standards of conduct are not directly applicable. [cites former 5 C.F.R. part 735]

A private sector attorney who represented clients before a Government agency was a prohibited source. In the absence of an exception, employees of the agency should not accept food or drink at these parties. [cites former 5 C.F.R. part 735]

OGE discusses the application of the honoraria ban in the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 to activities of a Government employee who, in his personal capacity, served as an ordained minister. [Note: The honoraria ban was subsequently held unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. National Treasury Employees Union, 513 U.S. 454 (1995).]

OGE addresses the question about the application of the honoraria ban contained within the Ethics Reform Act of 1989. [Note: The honoraria ban was subsequently held unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. National Treasury Employees Union, 513 U.S. 454 (1995).]

An employee's position with a private association created the appearance of a conflict of interest in light of his Government responsibilities as a technical assistance officer providing assistance to organizations, including the association.

OGE addresses complaints of an educational institution about the honoraria ban. [Note: The honoraria ban was subsequently held unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. National Treasury Employees Union, 513 U.S. 454 (1995).]

The honoraria ban prevents government employees from receiving fees for any nonfiction article they may want to publish and likely applies to the encyclopedia articles and contributions. [Note: The honoraria ban was subsequently held unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. National Treasury Employees Union, 513 U.S. 454 (1995).]

The honoraria ban does not include works of fiction, poetry, lyrics or scripts and would not prohibit a government employee from publishing science fiction stories. [Note: The honoraria ban was subsequently held unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. National Treasury Employees Union, 513 U.S. 454 (1995).]

The honoraria ban does not apply to part-time work as a licensed tour guide. [Note: The honoraria ban was subsequently held unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. National Treasury Employees Union, 513 U.S. 454 (1995).]

The honoraria ban likely does not apply to works of fiction, the publication of a book, or consulting fees for providing expert advice and opinions. [Note: The honoraria ban was subsequently held unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. National Treasury Employees Union, 513 U.S. 454 (1995).]

This memorandum provides initial guidance regarding the application of Title VI of the Ethics Reform Act, specifically provisions that prohibit the receipt of honoraria and limit the outside earned income and employment of certain high-level noncareer employees. [Note: The honoraria ban was subsequently held unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. National Treasury Employees Union, 513 U.S. 454 (1995).]

The honoraria ban does not prohibit a part-time government employee from receiving income for writing speeches for others. [Note: The honoraria ban was subsequently held unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. National Treasury Employees Union, 513 U.S. 454 (1995).]

The restrictions in Title VI of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 on outside earning and employment activities apply to an agency board member, despite specific statutory job requirements, because the member is a non-career officer of the government, is compensated at a rate in excess of the GS-16 rate, and is not a special Government employee.

The facts presented to OGE indicate that an agency board member’s participation in the Citizen Ambassador Program is so closely connected with his agency responsibilities that it can be considered official rather than private participation; however, the agency must determine that the board member's participation in an official capacity is appropriate. If participation is official, the agency would be obligated to pay all expenses in connection with such official travel, unless reimbursement were determined to be permissible under relevant gift-acceptance statutes.

The outside earned income limitation does not exempt donations to charity in amounts exceeding the limitation; it cannot be avoided by accepting compensation in a forms other than cash; it includes dividend received from a corporation to operate a business; and it encompasses deferred payments for services that were performed in the calendar year.

18 U.S.C. § 207 does not bar a former government official who was responsible for developing standards for a specific product from appearing in a press release as the official would not be endorsing a particular brand of the specific product, would not be compensated for his appearance, and has no financial interest in the specific products.

In response to 1989 amendments to section 27 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, OGE prepared this memorandum to assist agencies in obtaining procurement official certifications and to satisfy the minimum requirement of Subsection 27(l) for a procurement ethics program that furnishes a written explanation of pertinent provisions of the law.

This memorandum summarizes the effect of Public Law 101-194 and 101-280 amendments made to 18 U.S.C. § 207 post-government service employment restrictions. Further guidance was provided in revised 5 C.F.R. part 2637 regulations. [5 C.F.R. part 2637 is applicable to employees who terminated service prior to January 1, 1991. 5 C.F.R. part 2641 provides guidance to employees terminating service on or after January 1, 1991.]

It would be inappropriate for current government employees to reach an agreement allowing the use of their photographs and/or signatures on trading cards that a private company proposes to sell on a non-profit basis to emphasize the importance of an agency mission and the benefits associated with the agency’s programs. (cites former 5 C.F.R. part 735)

The conflict of interest statutes and regulatory standards of conduct do not prohibit a federal employee who filed for a license on her own behalf prior to becoming a Federal employee from appearing before or making personal representations to the licensing commission as long as she adheres to her recusal and does not focus on her Federal position during the license application process.

Not all transactions and occurrences which result in the realization of ordinary or capital gains income by parties effectuating ethics agreements fall within the statutory scheme of section 1043. OGE has a policy against issuing a Certificate of Divestiture in a case where the effect would be to grant an unfair and unintended benefit.

In the absence of a demonstration that the employee’s interest in the corporation shares is not eligible for rollover treatment, a certificate will not be issued with respect to his interest in the plan. The demonstration must satisfy OGE that the plan administrator could not make a qualifying distribution where 402(f) would apply.

OGE analyzes whether a certain project can be viewed as particular matter with specific parties under 18 U.S.C. § 207. OGE found that the numerous specific steps taken in preparation for a solicitation were sufficient to characterize the contract as a particular matter prior to the former employee’s departure.

OGE discusses the applicability of 18 U.S.C. § 207’s post-employment restrictions to a former Senior Executive Service employee. The restrictions of 207(c), when applied to those positions designated as Senior Employee positions, attach to the person actually serving in a designated position.

OGE responds to concerns regarding the legality of an individual retired from the armed services serving in various capacities with a corporation. The primary restrictions applicable to former Government employees are found at 18 U.S.C. § 207. Other statutes that may apply include 10 U.S.C. § 2379b, 18 U.S.C. § 281 and 18 U.S.C. § 203.

The criminal conflict of interest statute that applies to a former Federal Government employee is 18 U.S.C. § 207. There are four proscriptions in 207, of which two, those in subsections (a) and (b)(i), could affect a non-Senior Employee’s potential employment opportunities. [cites former 5 C.F.R. part 737]

Current civilian employees of the Federal Government are subject to restrictions relating to their acceptance of gifts and employment from foreign governments. Retired civilian employees, however, are not subject to these restrictions.

OGE discusses the application of 18 U.S.C. § 207 to a former government employee. Particularly, OGE discusses 18 U.S.C. § 207 as applied to bilateral trade agreements as particular matters involving specific parties and renegotiation of bilateral trade agreements as the same particular matter. [cites former 5 C.F.R. part 737]

OGE responds to concerns that the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 would impede the volunteerism of Federal employees. The conflicts of interest statutes that raise concerns (18 U.S.C. §§ 205 and 208) are not new to the Ethics Reform Act.

Conflicts of interest can arise when a law student is in a criminal justice clinic and employed by the Federal Government. A student’s appointment with the Federal Government (whether they are a special Government employee and how long they have worked for the agency) will determine the application of the criminal conflict of interest statute.

An executive branch employee may serve as an expert witness. The Courts have recognized that agencies have a right to establish “housekeeping” rules governing the use of agency information and personnel in litigation. The Standards of Conduct apply to an employee providing expert testimony in their personal capacity. [cites former 5 CFR 735]

Both 18 U.S.C. § 207 as well as 18 U.S.C. § 203 have provisions that prevent a former Federal employee from representing a party before the individual’s former agency or in court against specific charges filed with that agency. [cites former 5 C.F.R. part 737]

A tax lien is not a mortgage and therefore would not fall under the exception in section 102(a)(4) of the Ethics in Government Act. As a result, a tax liability would need to be reported in a financial disclosure report.

A Federal employee is free to participate in nonprofit organization programs as an uncompensated speaker, instructor or panelist in his personal capacity, whether or not the organization is charging a fee for attendance. Employees may not use or permit the use of their official title, position, or authority to further interests.

A former government employee who served in an Executive Level position within an agency is considered to be a “Senior Employee” for purposes of the post-government employment restriction of 18 U.S.C. § 207 and is subject to four distinct restrictions. [Note: This advisory was criticized in EEOC v. Exxon Corp., 202 F.3d 755 (5th Cir. 2000).]

Conflict of interest statutes and regulations apply to former government officials accepting membership and training in the National Defense Executive Reserve (NDER) if the participant is viewed as serving in a government employee status; however, the activities of NDER members vary and cannot be categorically excluded from such status.

An agency employee is considered to have indirectly accepted such a gift if a private organization for which he serves as an officer receives cash from an agency prohibited source, unless the officer does not participate in the decision to accept the grant. [cites former 5 C.F.R. 735.202]

Several ethics provisions prohibit a presidential appointee from writing and publishing a book, even where the appointee intends to dedicate all royalties to charity, where it appears that the book will be devoted substantially to the responsibilities, programs, or operation of the agency.

An agency may grant a 18 U.S.C. § 208(b)(1) waiver to an employee who participates in matters affecting state and municipal financial interests and whose wife owns general state and city bonds and to an employee who participates in matters affecting the oil industry and is an income beneficiary of a diversified trust with interest in oil entities.

A former senior employee's representations in a committee on behalf of a private industry member is prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 207(c) because the committee is a forum organized by his former agency and for its benefit and an agency official is required to be present at meetings. Certain § 207 exceptions may apply in this situation.

OGE agrees with an ALJ's provisional decision that a former employee's representation to the agency of a party regarding an employment discrimination complaint for non-selection was not a particular matter in which the former employee had previously participated personally and substantially under 18 U.S.C. 207.

The standards of conduct do not apply to a doctor whose status is that of a contractor, rather than an employee, of an agency. Thus, the doctor may appear as an expert witness in case regarding a claim against the U.S. based on allegations of malpractice by employee physicians at an agency hospital.

The head of each agency must appoint a designated agency ethics official as well as an alternate designated agency ethics official regardless of whether any agency employees are required to file public disclosure reports. [cites former 5 CFR § 738.202]

Mere membership in an outside organization dealing directly with the agency an employee manages does not create an 18 U.S.C. § 208 conflict of interest. However, the appearance of conflict may occur under the regulatory standards of conduct and the agency must determine whether recusal from specific matters or membership withdrawal is necessary.

The Standards of Conduct prohibit federal employees who are members of a society that derives a portion of its revenues from corporations and other entities from soliciting or accepting, even indirectly, anything of monetary value from entities that are a prohibited source seeking to sell its product to the members employing agency.

18 U.S.C. § 209(a) prohibits an agreement between a company and employee that provides standard benefits to the employee during a two-year leave of absence to serve with an agency and offers an $80,000 incentive to return to the company following her temporary assignment with the agency.

Receipt of company dividends instead of a salary constitutes receiving compensation for services rendered by the employee’s company to the Government. [Note: The 18 U.S.C. § 203 analysis in this opinion was modified by OGE Informal Advisory Memorandum 99 x 25.]

The standards of conduct make it improper for a university to use the name of a prominent agency official in connection with fundraising efforts to endow a chair where an employee must avoid any action that might result in or create the appearance of using public office for private gain.

18 U.S.C. § 207 assigns agencies the primary responsibility to provide post-employment advice to former employees and it applies where a former employee advised the U.S. in foreign negotiations to reduce government subsidies to an industry and later represents an industry association as an advisor to a U.S. team negotiating this issue.

An agency may waive 18 U.S.C. § 207(a) and (b)(i) post-government employment restrictions to allow an employee to participate in cooperative research and development agreements between the agency and a private sector employer where the employee is a world-renowned scientist and his continued collaboration would serve the national interest.

18 U.S.C. § 207 does not prohibit former agency employees working for a licensee’s contractors from executing affidavits about the truth of statements made to the agency by a licensee manager where the affidavits were not representations or communications on behalf of the contractors, but instead on behalf of the licensee, an agency of the U.S.

Employee participation in corporate-sponsored fund-raising events for charity is prohibited where the agency does not have a legitimate interest in permitting attendance other than supporting a good cause, the event is sponsored by a prohibited source, and such attendance may create the appearance of giving preferential treatment to anyone.

For all matters assigned to an administrative law judge or to a panel of which he was a member, the judge is barred 18 U.S.C. § 207(a) you would be subject to the lifetime section 207(a) ban, as your participation would be both personal and substantial.

Under the facts presented, the proposed participation of the director of a governmental foundation in awarding foundation funding to centers as to which a company in which he owns stock is an industrial affiliate would raise an appearance of impropriety.

The position shifting provision was added to prevent agencies from transferring an individual in a designated position to one that is not, thus allowing 1 or 2 years to elapse, enabling the employee to leave public service for a private position without the constraints of 18 U.S.C. § 207(b)(ii) and (c). [cites former version of 18 U.S.C. § 207]

The Independent Counsel's report provides insight into the process of an evaluation by a prosecutor for possible prosecution under the criminal conflict of interest statutes; the significance of a declination of prosecution, the importance of ethics agreements both to the individual and to the public, and the role of public financial disclosure.

Intent to compensate for performance of Government duties is highly probative in reviewing for a potential violation of 18 U.S.C. § 209. Under the facts presented, the employee's acceptance of a research scholarship from the college would violate the statute.

This opinion addresses the manner of reporting of employee benefit plans, and pensions in particular, on the SF 278 financial disclosure report as required by the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, as amended.

OGE must approve proposed qualified blind trust arrangements prior to the time the instruments are executed and the assets placed within the trust. Otherwise, the instrument will not be recognized as creating an efficacious blind trust under the Ethics in Government Act.

To the extent a former employee participated personally and substantially in, or had official responsibility for, particular matters involving specific parties during the time he worked as an independent contractor for his former agency, he is not barred by 18 U.S.C. § 207.

Former 18 U.S.C. § 207(g) limited the representational activities of any partner of a current officer or employee of the U.S. Government in connection with any particular matter in which such officer or employee participated or had participated personally and substantially.

OGE discusses the application of 18 U.S.C. §§ 203 and 205, as well as several ethics regulations, to a Federal employee under consideration to become a member of a board of directors of a grantee of a particular program operated by the department employing the individual.

Federal agencies should be very careful when providing a speaker at a for-profit endeavor to be sure that the Government's interest in reaching that audience is substantial and that the same audience could not be reached without supporting the private endeavor. [Cites former Part 2637]

An employee who also has a private law practice must have each instance of proposed representation evaluated by his superiors, so that they can determine on a case-by-case basis whether representation by him in a given set of personnel administration proceedings is not inconsistent with the faithful performance of his duties.

A "designated" senior employee of a division of a department may not represent anyone to that division or to any entity within the department that is not a separate statutory agency, or a separate non-statutory agency other than the employee's division. [Cites former Part 737]

A former senior employee's work on general policy matters was not within the scope of 18 U.S.C. § 207(a) or (b). The former employee's proposed contacts with representatives of his former agency, however, are subject to 18 U.S.C. § 207(c). [Cites former 5 C.F.R. Part 737]

OGE discusses the applicability of 18 U.S.C. § 207 to a former employee's proposed employment as the manger of the communications services facility of an agency contractor. Because more than two years had passed since the former employee's resignation from the agency, the only applicable provision was 18 U.S.C. § 207(a).

This is an agency-wide memorandum from OGE concerning executive branch employees' acceptance of food and refreshments. The memorandum covers Executive Order 11222, applicable criminal statutes, other related statutes and the administrative standards of conduct. [cites former 5 C.F.R. Part 735]

The Deputy Staff Director of a Commission, whose services were being donated by a private corporation and who remained an employee of that corporation, should file a public financial disclosure report. He was serving on a full-time basis as Deputy Staff Director and was supervised by the Staff Director, who was on the government payroll.

OGE advised that a corporation's contribution to a university which the agency's employee had previously served as president to establish a President's Discretionary Fund in the employee's honor would not, in an of itself, be prohibited. OGE concluded the agency's gift rule as well as 18 U.S.C. § 209 would not apply. [cites former 5 C.F.R. § 735.202]

OGE discusses the four post employment restrictions found in 18 U.S.C. § 207 and when they apply to a former employee. Additionally, OGE discusses how to define the particular matter when dealing with a loan from an agency.

OGE discusses the basic principle of reporting of interests in nonpublic entities on the SF 278, the public financial disclosure report. The advisory letter demonstrated this principle using examples, such as the private investment pool, the pension plan, and the limited partnership.

OGE advised an agency's General Counsel on the conflict of interest issues associated with the agency's attorneys' membership in a particular bar association whose members were individuals who practiced before, or were employees of, the agency.

18 U.S.C. § 208(a) does not take into account the motive or good faith of the employee. The restrictions of section 208(a) are triggered if: 1) at the time an employee participates in a matter, he realizes he is participating in the matter, and 2) he must have knowledge that a personal or derivative financial interest is involved in the matter.

There are options available to presidential appointees with extensive financial holdings, including a waiver under 18 U.S.C. § 208(b)(1) and a common trust fund of a bank, to ensure compliance with 18 U.S.C. § 208 should the individual dissolve the qualified blind trusts that were established in during the individual's current position in the Administration.

OGE advised an agency ethics official that 18 U.S.C. § 207(b)(i) would prohibit a former US Attorney for two years following government service from representing an individual in matters relating to a plea agreement and narcotics prosecution in an investigation in which his former office and various other federal districts were involved.

OGE advised that the post employment restrictions of 18 U.S.C. § 207 do not prohibit representations on any matter made only to members of Congress or their staffs. OGE also discussed the application of 18 U.S.C. § 207 to a former employee attending a meeting, at his former agency's request, to discuss a matter on which he previously worked.

OGE advised that the 18 U.S.C. § 207(d)(2)(B)(i) exemption from the one-year cooling-off period of 18 U.S.C. § 207(c) applied to a former Senior Employee of the agency serving as an employee of a non-profit interstate compact organization which served as the regional representative of 16 southern states and Puerto Rico in energy and environmental matters.

An official at an agency who was responsible for planning meetings could not use the substantially reduced rates and payment of expenses offered by members of a particular association to which he belonged, in conjunction with on-site inspections of meeting facilities. Acceptance of payment could violate 18 U.S.C. § 209. [cites former 5 C.F.R. § 735.202]

To evaluate requests for an official’s signature, agencies should consider the nature of the item on which the signature is to be affixed, the purpose for which the signature is sought, and the official’s position to ensure that the request does not create an appearance of using public office for private gain. [cites former 5 C.F.R. § 735.201a(a)]

An employee may request a waiver of the public reporting requirements of for wedding gifts he and his future spouse received by following the procedures in 5 C.F.R. § 734.303(g)(2). Such gifts are not automatically exempt from reporting requirements. [cites former 5 U.S.C. app. § 202]

18 U.S.C. § 207 did not prohibit a former government employee from representing a company in seeking a contract that was related to his former duties where he was not personally and substantially involved in the matter on which his services were being requested.

OGE reviews the provisions that should be analyzed when determining whether an agency employee may continue to publish a newsletter providing agency information readily available to the public. [cites former 5 C.F.R. Part 735]

18 U.S.C. § 207(a) does not prohibit a former government employee from making representations to his former agency in response to an RFP that he had reviewed as an agency employee but which was issued after he left government employment.

The Ethics in Government Act does not prohibit a trustee of a qualified blind trust from investing in a diversified mutual fund that might have incidental interests in certain organizations the direct of holding of which might be otherwise prohibited. [cites former 5 U.S.C. app. 4 § 202]

OGE reviews the provisions that should be analyzed when determining whether an agency employee might co-author and accept royalties from two books on subjects involving his official duties. [cites former 5 C.F.R. part 735]

An agency can allow the acceptance of official travel expenses associated with on-site inspections and public meetings, even when the entity defraying the expenses has interests that could be affected by the agency’s activities; however, an agency should consider imposing some limitations.

An agency’s supply service personnel should not accept compensation for their participation in a corporation’s market research survey, as such compensation violates 18 U.S.C. § 209 and 5 C.F.R. §§ 735.201a(a), 735.203, and 735.206 restrictions. [cites former 5 C.F.R. Part 735]

An employee could purchase discount airline tickets from the wife of the government employee’s subordinate without violating the gift restrictions of 5 U.S.C. § 7351 and 5 C.F.R. § 735.202(d); however, the employee’s agency could determine that such an action still created the appearance of impropriety. [cites former 5 C.F.R. Part 735]

18 U.S.C. § 207(g) bars a government employee’s business partner from engaging in representational activities related to matters in which the employee participates or is under his official responsibility. 18 U.S.C. §§ 203 and 205 could also impact the employee’s partnership activities and his agency may apply further restrictions.

The outside earned income limitation does not affect an employee’s book contract and part-time teaching position where the employee did not serve in a position to which the limitation applied. However, such activity may be restricted by other standards of conducts and regulations. [cites former 5 U.S.C. app. 4 § 210 and 5 C.F.R. Part 735]

Investment clubs are not appropriate subjects for 18 U.S.C. § 208(b)(2) waivers because the circumstances surrounding the management and portfolio policies of investment clubs vary widely. However, an agency may announce in its regulations that waivers will be granted for investment clubs on a case-by-case basis under certain conditions.

A government employee’s self-disqualification with respect to a matter for which the employee had official responsibility would not remove the matter from the scope of the authority of the office for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 207(b)(1). [also cites former 5 C.F.R. Part 737]

18 U.S.C. § 207 does not apply to a former agency employee who left the agency to join the Tennessee Valley Authority, a government agency for purposes of applying the criminal conflict of interest statute. The statutory conflict of interest restriction did not apply because the matters were intra-governmental.

For 18 U.S.C. § 209, it is important to determine if the defense fund was meant to be "compensation for services as an employee of the United States." Determination must be based on totality of the circumstances. Persons involved in setting up fund must be mindful of 5 U.S.C. Part 7351 and the standards of conduct. [Note: In light of Crandon v. United States, 494 U.S. 152 (1990), the analysis regarding the application of 18 U.S.C. § 209 to legal defense funds was revised in OGE Informal Advisory Letter 93 x 21].

The memo covers applicable criminal statutes and other related statutes and the standards of conduct and the public disclosure requirements of the Ethics in Government Act. [cites former 5 C.F.R. Part 735]

OGE also pointed out that the husband's interests were voided by the Department on the basis of a specific statutory prohibition against employees holding such interests. There was also no unfair treatment, because others with prohibited interests were not required to divest if they had the interest prior to employment.

The organization could host a separate banquet honoring the recipients of the awards because as 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3) organization, it could under 5 U.S.C. § 4111, offer such an honor to each employee. Each employee's agency wound need to determine under 5 C.F.R. Part 410.705 if its employees could attend.

18 U.S.C. § 207(a) prohibited former employee from representing foundation to the government on matters involving the establishment of the foundation or its working relationship with the museum. The OGE determined that the concept of a departmental museum was a particular matter involving a specific party. [Cites former 5 C.F.R. Part 738]

Although the recusal requirement of 18 U.S.C. § 208 would not be triggered because it doesn't cover financial interests of a sibling, the standards of conduct would apply. [References 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) and (b), OGE Advisory 83x18 and former 5 C.F.R. Part 735]

Several statutes and regulations impose restrictions on the business activities and compensation of employee who owns a business and is interested in bidding on Government contracts. [Note: The 18 U.S.C. § 203 analysis in this opinion was modified by OGE Informal Advisory Memorandum 99 x 25.] [Cites former 5 C.F.R. Part 735.]

OGE determined given Nominee's continuing ties to the corp., package resembled a leave of absence rather than a normal severance agreement, and the pay seemed to be supplementing his government salary during the leave, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 209.

Given the nature of the duties the spouse performed, OGE determined she had a financial interest in the contract and thus the employee was prohibited from acting on the contract unless issued a waiver.

OGE advised the head of an agency of the considerations this Office felt were involved in determining whether the use of a government-owned vehicle for transportation to social or quasi-social events was a misuse of government property. [cites former 5 C.F.R. part 735]

OGE would not amend the exemption in 5 C.F.R. § 734.603(c) which allows Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation who are conducting criminal conflict of interest investigations access to public financial disclosure reports without filing a public request, to include agents of the inspectors general. [cites former 5 C.F.R. part 734]

OGE addresses issue of whether certain positions in an agency are of equal classification to those held by Senior Executive Service (SES) employees and should be required to public financial disclosure forms.

Since no ultimate resolution of the original filing had been reached and the matter was still capable of being pursued, it was, for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 207(b)(i) "actually pending" in the department. Further, the employee's official job description encompassed supervision of all such claims including this matter. [cites former 5 C.F.R. 737]

Even though certain functions of CAB were integrated into the existing structure of the DOT, 18 U.S.C. § 207(c)'s restrictive language refers explicitly to representations to the agency where the former employer served, and there was no portion of the DOT that could be considered the CAB for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 207(c).

Agency wished to allow employees giving speeches to receive gifts from host private entities. OGE said no exception could be applied that would allow receipt of those gifts, under 18 U.S.C. § 209 or under 5 C.F.R. §§ 735.202 and 735.203.

Employee could prepare and sign tax returns, but could not represent the taxpayers to the IRS in any subsequent audit. If the tax preparation was done through a business, the employee would be prohibited from sharing any fees generated by his associates in representing clients before the government. The agency could restrict activities.

OGE advised that agency versions of 5 C.F.R. §§ 735.203 and 735.206 applied to two agents contracting with a magazine, giving the magazine exclusive production rights to the story of their investigation into racketeering. OGE stated that the agency could consider adverse action if the agents violated the standards of conduct.

The 4th paragraph of 18 U.S.C. § 205 provides an exception allowing employees to represent other employees in certain internal proceedings. However, this would not reach the entitlement portion of a proceeding that is often part of a veteran's appeal.

The former proceeding involved a threshold issue and a follow-up issue. The agency ruled based on the threshold issue, and the remand involved the follow-up issue. OGE determined the individual "personally and substantially" participated in the first proceeding and that both proceedings must be considered parts of the same particular matter.

"Specific party" in 18 U.S.C. § 207 is not limited to entities that were parties at the same time a former government employee had personal and substantial participation for a particular matter. Also, a draft RFP is a "matter" but 18 U.S.C. § 207(a) and (b)(i) do not apply until it becomes a matter involving a specific party or parties.

The agency director was not prohibited from applying for an SBA loan for himself, as opposed to a corporation or partnership, because that section had never been interpreted to prevent an employee from representing himself before a federal agency or court. OGE suggested the director review a specific SBA regulation which might affect his plans.

Attorney did not qualify for certain limited restrictions of 18 U.S.C. §§ 203 and 205 for SGEs because he served more than 60 days in the preceding 365 day period. Because he was an SGE, 18 U.S.C. § 209 did not apply to him. 18 U.S.C. § 207(a) and (b)(i) would apply after termination, but 18 U.S.C. § 207(b)(ii) and (c) did not apply.

It would be improper for the agency head to write a forward for a book in his name as head of the agency or for his name and title to be used in the marketing and sale of the book, when the book was written by a private party and focused on the best use of the agency. Prohibited by 201(c) of EO 11222, and 5 C.F.R. part 735.201a(b).

An employee can accept lunch and certain winnings (airline tickets) because neither the luncheon host nor the airline that donated the tickets did business with the agency, was regulated by the agency, or had interests that could affect the employee's duties. (cites former 5 C.F.R. part 735)

OGE advised an employee after reviewing his former law firm's practice with regard to severance payments, that the severance payments made to the employee did not appear to constitute a supplementation of government salary prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 209 or a violation of any other relevant conflict of interest statute or regulation.

The employee, attempted to make a trust created for his children into a trust excepted under 5 U.S.C. app. § 202(f)(2)(B). A blind trust requires approval by the OGE, and an excepted trust requires the employee to have no knowledge of the assets of the trusts when he took office.

OGE advised a former employee that he may testify in a proceeding involving a dispute as to the interpretation of a settlement agreement in whose negotiations the former employee had personally and substantially participated as attorney representing a government commission. OGE's opinon was based on the exceptions found in 18 U.S.C. § 207(h).

Agency-wide memo on the acceptance and disclosure of travel expenses and related gifts. The memo covers applicable criminal statutes and other related statutes, the administrative standards of conduct, relevant decisions of the Comptroller General and the public disclosure requirements of the Ethics in Government Act. Originally issued on May 1, 1984; amended on August 24, 1984.

OGE advised agency counsel that while an employee's spouse who worked on a retainer basis for a contractor might not have a financial interest for purposes of disqualifying the employee under 18 U.S.C. § 208 from participating, the relationship created a high degree of appearance of impropriety, and the employee should not participate.

Advised an individual appointed as an independent counsel of the applicability of 18 U.S.C. §§ 203, 205 and 209 to him and his continued law practice because of his probable status as a special government employee.

Advised employee about application of 18 U.S.C. §§ 203, 205, 208 and 209 to his outside practice of law as a member of a law firm (after agency approved the outside employment). Describes prohibitions he would be subject to under each statute.

OGE advised that for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 207(a), the underlying commercial disputes between private parties should not be considered the same particular matters as the two treaty disputes between the US and Iran that the individual had personally and substantially participated in.

Determined that 18 U.S.C. §§ 207(a) and (b)(ii) did not prohibit representations to the tribunal, but that the former employee was prohibited from making representations to current U.S. government employees if they were also involved in the matter.

OGE advised an agency that an employee of the agency would be prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 208 from taking action on a contract when his wife was employed by the contractor as a consultant on the contract. A waiver would not overcome the appearance of impropriety in this situation.

Employee is subject to 18 U.S.C. §§ 203 and 205 while on sick leave pending retirement. He cannot make representations on behalf of a corporation, nor can he receive compensation based on anyone’s representation to the Government. [Note: The 18 U.S.C. § 203 analysis in this opinion was modified by OGE Informal Advisory Memorandum 99 x 25.]

OGE advises on whether a Commissioner is prohibited from participating in adjudicatory proceedings in which one of the parties is represented by a law firm with which the Commissioner's adult son is engaged as an associate. [cites former 5 C.F.R. Part 735]

OGE advised a former non-senior employee who had, while an employee, been substantially involved in developing proposed legislation. OGE stated that he was not prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 207(a) or (b)(i) from assisting a private organization in trying to achieve passage of the bill, as it was not a particular matter involving specific parties.

OGE advised that the President and Vice President are not legally subject to (1) the restrictions of the criminal conflict of interest laws in 18 U.S.C. §§ 202-209 and (2) the standards of conduct set forth in Executive Order 11222 and the regulations thereunder. [cites former 5 C.F.R. Part 735]

OGE provides guidance on whether payments to government employees from a private trust would violate 18 U.S.C. § 209(a). In this case, the only eligible recipients for grants from the trust would be defined by their federal employment. This would give rise to an inference that such payments were made as outside compensation for Government services.

OGE advised a department that a former senior employee subject to 18 U.S.C. § 207(c) could not, for a period of one year after leaving Government Service, represent a corporation to the department on any matter which was pending before the department or in which it had an interest.

OGE provides guidance on 18 U.S.C. § 207(b)(i) to a former Government attorney who may have violated the statute by representing an individual in negotiations with a U.S. Attorney's office during a grand jury investigation when that investigation had been pending in the former employee's office during his last year of Government service.

A former senior employee of the agency violated 18 U.S.C. § 207(c) by submitting an application to the agency on behalf of a corporation within on year from the time he left the agency. Additionally, he violated 18 U.S.C. § 207(a) because the matter was one which the employee had been personally and substantially involved as a Government employee.

An employee of an agency would be prohibited by the agency's standards of conduct relating to the acceptance of gifts from receiving a cash public service award from an organization which was directly affected by action taken by the agency. [cites former 5 C.F.R. § 735.202]

There is no requisite intent to compensate an official for official duties and therefore no violation of 18 U.S.C. § 209 in the bestowal upon a Government official of a bona fide award for public service or other meritorious service.

A statute creating a Government board required members of the board not to have any financial interest in a certain company. OGE concluded that an individual would still have a financial interest in a company within the meaning of the statute if that individual placed the company's stock in an irrevocable trust for the benefit of her children.

A former senior employee who had assisted his former agency in drafting proposed legislation would not be prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 207(c) from representing a private client to the legislative branch on that legislation. He would be prohibited from representing a client on that legislation to his agency or their employees for 1 year after his departure.

Payments made under a Covenant Not to Compete entered into by a recent appointee may not raise a question under 18 U.S.C. § 209 if they were made pursuant to an agreement entered into before contemplation of Government Service and for a normal business purpose. However, 18 U.S.C. § 208 applies for any action affecting that corporation.

A former Government employee would not be barred by 18 U.S.C. § 207(a) or (b) from being an expert witness in litigation where the United States was a defendant and another defendant wished to use the employee as an expert when the employee's work for the government was not a particular matter involving a specific party or parties.

A senior White House official receiving payments from a publisher for a proposed diet book does not violate 18 U.S.C. § 209, the 15% outside earned income limitation imposed by the White House on its senior staff, or the prohibition on presidential appointees receiving compensation for writings.

OGE advises that the acceptance by an employee for the reimbursement from a private source for travel expenses of a spouse accompanying the employee on official travel would probably, except under very limited circumstances, violate 18 U.S.C. § 209 and standards of conduct governing gifts.

OGE discusses whether it would be permissible, under 18 U.S.C. §§ 203, 205, or 209, for an attorney's former law firm to pay the fees and expenses of his counsel and personal expenses when incurred by him in a matter arising out his prior private service as counsel to a corporation now the subject of a federal grand jury investigation.

The exception in 18 U.S.C. § 205 for "testimony under oath" would permit a present employee of the U.S. Government to serve as an expert witness for the plaintiff even though the United States was a defendant-in-chief. However, it is OGE's position that the standards of conduct, would prohibit such testimony. [cites former 5 C.F.R. § 735.201]

OGE addresses the question "whether, or under what circumstances, a federal employee's vested rights in a private corporation's pension plan constitute a 'financial interest' under 18 U.S.C. § 208, so as to bar the employee's participating in a contract or other particular matter involving that corporation." [The guidance in this opinion was modified in 1999 by DAEOgram DO-99-015.]

18 U.S.C. § 207 does not prohibit a former Commissioner from being hired by a Federal judge as a special representative on a matter in which he had participated personally and substantially under the exception for acting on behalf of the United States. The Commissioner may have independent contractor status under 18 U.S.C. §§ 203 and 205.

18 U.S.C. §§ 203 and 205 does not prohibit a government employee from working for a consulting firm on a contract with another agency if the employee did not represent the firm before the agency and payment for his services was not contingent on the firm’s contract.

OGE supports interpreting 18 U.S.C. § 205 as excepting federal attorneys, with proper approval, from prohibitions on representing employees and clients in administrative proceedings appealed to a district court. For an employee to represent another employee, the representation must not be “inconsistent with the faithful performance of his duties.”

Outside Earned Income under 5 U.S.C. app. § 210 includes income from the sale or other disposition of, transfer of an interest in, or licensing of the use of an intellectual property such as a manuscript by the official who created the property.

A publishing company is not prohibited by 5 C.F.R. § 735.202 from distributing for free an edition of a reference book to the 29,000 agency officials listed in the book. While the company did business or was seeking to do business with those agencies, the book fell within the exception for unsolicited advertising. [cites former 5 C.F.R. § 735.202]

18 U.S.C. § 207(a) prohibits a former government attorney from representing his law firm in negotiations with an agency concerning the agency’s wish to hire the firm as outside counsel in a matter in which the attorney had personally and substantially participated. Once the firm was hired, the attorney could provide legal services for the agency.

A private corporation may, without violating 18 U.S.C. § 209, pay certain expenses incident to one of its employee’s move to Washington DC in part to participate in the one-year Presidential Executive Exchange Program because the move was determined to be an intra-company move and the payments were made pursuant to a bona fide employee benefit plan.

5 U.S.C. app. § 203(f)(3)(c)(ii) prohibits a trustee from holding in trust for any interested party any asset that the interested party is specifically prohibited by law or regulations from holding, even in the context of a blind trust where the interested party would be unaware of the asset acquired by the trustee. [cites former version of § 203]

A former federal attorney is barred by 18 U.S.C. § 207(a) from representing a state before a federal agency or employee in the state’s prosecution of an individual where the attorney participated personally and substantially in the federal prosecution of the same individual for the same activities.

A retired military officer who is now employed in the executive branch is not required to disclose his military retirement income. Such retirement income is considered “reduced compensation for reduced current services” and falls within the parenthetical exception in 5 U.S.C. app. § 202(a)(1)(A).

OGE discusses (1) the background of the conflict-of-interest statutes, particularly 18 U.S.C. § 202(a); (2) the characteristics of advisory committee members who are SGEs, as distinguished from those who remain in private roles; and (3) the principles enunciated by the Federal Personnel Manual to the members of present or former advisory committees.

To take advantage of the exception to 18 U.S.C. § 207 for representing Indian tribes, a former employee must notify the governmental body before which he wishes to appear that the matter involved in the appearance was one in which he personally and substantially participated as a government employee.

18 U.S.C. § 207 restrictions apply only to employees of entities within the executive branch as those terms are defined by 18 U.S.C. § 6 and 5 C.F.R. § 737.3(a)(2). The Government Printing Office does not fall within those definitions and has long been recognized as part of the legislative branch.

OGE advised that if an employee accepted a transfer to World Bank, that the employee could act on behalf of the Bank on any matter pursuant to the exceptions to 18 U.S.C. § 207 as the exception runs to employees of a public international organization on assignment from an agency.

An executor’s fee and a trustee’s fee “brought about” by services performed in such capacities while serving in the Government, must be considered as outside earned income for purposes of the limitations set forth in 5 U.S.C. app. § 210. OGE explains how to calculate the amount attributable to the outside earned income limitation.

A former senior employee was not prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 207(b) and (c) from being present in a courtroom or advising defense counsel at defense counsel’s table during proceedings involving a particular matter in which he had not personally participated but which had been under his official responsibility during his last year of government service.

A former government employee who testifies on behalf of a private party in a rate-making proceeding would violate 18 U.S.C. § 207(a) if the proceeding were considered to be of the “same particular matter involving a specific party or parties” as an earlier rate-making proceeding in which the employee had personally and substantially participated.

An agency can, under its regulatory equivalent to 5 C.F.R. § 735.203, prohibit certain outside employment based on the appearance of impropriety that previously subjected the agency to unfavorable criticism and impaired the public’s confidence in the agency. Unless the agency’s judgment was arbitrary or capricious, OGE would not overturn it.

OGE intended through its regulation in Part 738 of Title 5 of the C.F.R., that each agency have only one designated agency ethics official and only one alternate agency ethics official as required to perform the duties in 5 C.F.R. § 738.203(b)(3). Only the designated agency ethics official is required to file a public financial disclosure report.

A former Government employee who served in the executive branch until 1967 was subject to the post employment restrictions of 18 U.S.C. § 207(a) as read in 1967 and not as amended in 1978 and 1979 where he sought to consult for a subcontractor in a suit arising out of the contracted work with the individual’s former agency.

A letter submitted to an agency by a former government official that simply agreed to an agency assessment and stated that a check was tendered is not a communication submitted with the “intent to influence” as prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 207(a), even though the former official recommended the assessment while employed by the agency.

18 U.S.C. § 207(c) prohibits a former senior employee from representing his new employer in negotiations with his former agency concerning the corporation’s use of subcontractors. This opinion also discusses the policy statement in 5 C.F.R. § 737.1 implementing 18 U.S.C. § 207(b)(ii) regarding supervisory participation in a government funded project.

18 U.S.C. § 207(g) prohibits a government commissioner's general partners from representing clients before the commissioner’s agency at any level. Recusal by the commissioner in any matter in which one of the partners represented a client would not have the effect of removing the matter from the under the commissioner’s "official responsibility."

18 U.S.C. § 207 would not prohibit a former senior agency employee from appearing as a state expert witness in a hearing before a second agency if the subject matter of his testimony were limited to the validity of the investigations and methodologies used by the other consultant that the state had retained to produce data to be used at the hearing.

A government employee who takes leave without pay to accept a temporary, non-conflicting position with a corporation would not violate 18 U.S.C. § 209 by accepting a salary and certain employee benefits from the corporation during that time.

The receipt of a bequest by the present employees of an agency would not violate 18 U.S.C. § 209(a) when the bequest was made without intent to influence and the employees provided services to the deceased without any expectation of reward. This determination is premised on the specific facts of the transfer of an item of value to an employee.

18 U.S.C. § 207 did not apply to a former legislative employee who had, by virtue of his legislative position, served as an ex-officio member of a commission within the executive branch where the former employee was still responsible in a direct manner to Congress for the performance of his duties.

A former government employee would not violate 18 U.S.C. § 207 by completing revisions of a technical manual for his present employer that the former employee had written and had begun to revise for his former agency before leaving the government because the revision was not a “particular matter involving specific parties.”

A former senior employee would not violate 18 U.S.C. § 207(c) by contacting his former agency within the prohibited one-year period to recommend the appointment of an individual to a position in that agency if the recommendation were based on his personal knowledge of the individual under section 207(i).

An agency wishing to contract with a credit union, whose membership and management is composed of current and retired agency employees, must ensure that employees taking action on the contract were not credit union members or officers and did not hold a financial interest in it.

The chain of command was dispositive in determining a former senior employee’s “agency” for purposes of applying 18 U.S.C. § 207(c) and the former employee was prohibited from representing anyone before any portion of that agency for one year following his termination of government service.

18 U.S.C. § 207(a) did not prohibit a former Government attorney from preparing a client memo analyzing rules which he had been personally and substantially involved in creating as a Federal employee. Section 207 applies to representations before and communications to the U.S., and rulemaking is not a "particular matter involving a specific party."

A member of a federal board was determined to be a special government employee under 18 U.S.C. § 202 and was subject to the conflict of interest laws when representing his private business to the government. However, the restrictions of 18 U.S.C. §§ 203 and 205 had a limited application to the special government employee.

18 U.S.C. § 207(a) prohibits a former commissioner from representing a client before his former commission in the same particular matter involving a specific party where an individual who was denied relief during the former commissioner’s tenure wished to reapply to the commission for the same type of relief.

Whether 5 U.S.C. app. § 201(f)(3)requires an individual to file a public financial disclosure report is determined by the level of position that the individuals holds and not the amount of money paid to the individual. If a department had unclassified special government employees, it must look to the amount paid. [cites former 5 U.S.C. app. 4]

18 U.S.C. § 203 did not prohibit government employees from preparing income tax returns for others, but employees may not provide services beyond the preparation for compensation. Further, section 203 does not bar an agency from adopting stricter standards if it concludes that an outside activity would be adverse to its interests.

A former senior employee would not violate 18 U.S.C. § 207(c) if his name was placed on an active list of arbitrators maintained by the agency under the subsection (i) exemption for matters “of a personal and individual nature” where the agency maintained the list and had no control over who was selected from the list by parties to an arbitration.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 208(a) requires a Government employee to refrain from participating in any matter that might come before his agency in which the limited partnership in which he is a partner is directly involved. [also discusses a prior version of 18 U.S.C. § 207]

OGE advised a company that it might afford one of its employees, who was leaving the company to accept an appointment in the Federal Government, the opportunity to use its home buying service. The service did not fall within the exemptions of 18 U.S.C. § 209(b) but OGE found that the offer was made as a recognition of past services.

Pursuant to the terms of 18 U.S.C. § 209(b), a corporation may continue to pay certain specific employee benefits to one of its employees who is on a 90 day leave of absence from the corporation serving as a consultant to the Federal Government.

A former government attorney representing domestic gas companies in negotiations with a foreign state-owned oil company would not be restricted by 18 U.S.C. § 207. Also, 18 U.S.C. § 207(b) would not prohibit his representing the companies to the Federal Government because it would be based on a new particular matter with different specific parties.

The denial of the limitation of scope of coverage of 18 U.S.C. § 207(c) to those persons who had supervisory authority over separate statutory agencies designated under section 207(e) is intended by the statute, even if the separate statutory agency functions totally independent of the parent agency.

Former employees who had, while employed by the Government, participated personally and substantially in actual or potential claims against Iran involving specific parties would not be prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 207 from representing these claimants in an appearance before the Iranian Claims Tribunal.

OGE advised that an employee of the Internal Revenue Service would be prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 205 from representing another employee of the IRS in a tax audit. Such representation would not fall within the exceptions for a "disciplinary ... or other personnel administration proceeding."

Follow up to an Advisory where OGE stated that a former senior employee is not prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 207(a) or (b) from appearing before Congress on any matter as Congress clearly is not included in the list of entities cited in those subsections to which communications are prohibited.

OGE advised a department that its former general counsel, a senior employee, had supervisory authority over separate agencies within that department and was therefore not eligible for any limitation of the scope of coverage of 18 U.S.C. § 207(c) afforded by 18 U.S.C. § 207(e).

An agency may always seek the assistance of a former employee without his being in jeopardy of violating post-employment provisions of section 207(c) because the former employee would be representing the Government. The restrictions do no prohibit a former employee from representing anyone before a private contractor, only before his former agency.

OGE advises on the type of appointment or authority normally associated with the status of special Government employee including signing a customary oath of office or getting sworn in; receiving compensation or expenses from the Federal Government; acting as a spokesperson for any Government agency; or having Government office space.

The key determination pursuant to section 207(e) of whether section 207(c) is applicable to bar post-employment activity of a former Senior Employee of the parent agency is whether his or her responsibilities included supervision of the subordinate agency.

The legislative history of the outside earned income limitation of Section 210 of the Ethics in Government Act would indicate that this restriction was meant to apply to those key Presidentially-appointed policymakers whose positions appear in the Presidential personnel Appointment File maintained in the Executive office of the President.

OGE stated that a former senior employee is not prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 207(a) or (b) from appearing before Congress on any matter as Congress clearly is not included in the list of entities cited in those subsections to which communications are prohibited.

OGE advised a Congressman that the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 207 would apply to a former senior executive branch employee now on his staff who represented the Congressman's constituents (at the Congressman's request) before his former agency. These representations would not be made on behalf of the constituents and on specific matters.

OGE advised that it is the level of the position held by the individual and not the level of pay the individual receives which controls whether the individual must file a public financial disclosure report required by Title II of the Ethics in Government Act.

A disciplinary panel of a self-regulatory organization (SRO) was not an “agency or Department” of the agency in which a former employee served; the employee may act as an expert witness at a disciplinary hearing of the SRO.

A former General Counsel of an agency, who had worked to develop plans to desegregate the higher education systems of several states, was barred by 18 U.S.C. § 207(a) from representing one of these states before his former agency with regard to the plans.

Whether a former administrative law judge (ALJ) may represent claimants who seek benefits at hearings before ALJs of his former agency requires a case-by-case analysis. [Refers to form implementing regulation]

Arguing to a judge or jury on behalf of a private plaintiff in a case against a Government department constitutes an oral communication to the department with the intent to influence. [Cites former 5 C.F.R. part 737]

A former Government employee was barred from representing his new employer in connection with one phase of a Government project but not other phases of the project. [Cites prior version of 18 U.S.C. § 207]

Unless the potential offeror was identified as a party or one of a number of potential parties to the particular matter in question at the time two former employees worked on the matter, the bar in 18 U.S.C. § 207(a) and 207(b)(i) would not attach.

18 U.S.C. § 207 bars a former Government attorney from representing the other parties to government contracts that he reviewed for purposes of making amendments and for purposes of rendering legal advice.

An employee’s personal and substantial participation in a matter precludes him from making appearances before or communications to a Federal agency with regard to that matter. [Cites former version of 18 U.S.C. § 207(a) and 5 CFR Part 737]

An employee’s leave of absence agreement with an organization is an arrangement concerning prospective employment. Divestiture of re-employment rights resolves the conflict of interest with the organization.

Former 18 U.S.C. § 207(g) did not apply to situation in which law firm with a former Government attorney as a partner represented a client in a matter in which the former Government attorney participated. [Cites former version of 18 U.S.C. § 207.]

[Note: The conclusion in this opinion was modified by amendments to the Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA). For a current discussion of application of conflict of interest laws to detailees from state and local governments, see OGE Informal Advisory Memorandum 02 x 11.]